- 11 -
under Treasury Department Circular No. 230, current version at 31
C.F.R. secs. 10.3 and 10.7 (2001), and Rev. Proc. 81-38, 1981-2
C.B. 592, Mr. Smigiel was not permitted to represent petitioner
before the IRS Appeals Office.
Finally, the notice of determination herein is valid on its
face. It is not invalid by reason of the Appeals officer’s
concluding the Appeals hearing “abruptly”. Moreover, the Appeals
officer did not terminate the hearing “abruptly” as petitioner
contends. The Appeals officer gave petitioner ample opportunity
to raise relevant issues relating to the notice of Federal tax
lien filing. However, petitioner insisted upon making frivolous
and groundless arguments. Only after petitioner continued to
repeat those same arguments and after he failed to raise any
relevant issues did the Appeals officer end the hearing. The
Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion in doing so.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a
taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty whenever it
appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by
the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position
in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. Throughout the
proceedings in this case, petitioner has raised the same
arguments that we have previously and consistently rejected as
frivolous and groundless. Petitioner failed to file a response
to respondent’s motion for summary judgment as required by our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011