- 10 -
2002-106; Weishan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-88; Lindsey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-87, affd. 456 Fed. Appx. 802 (9th
Cir. 2003); Tolotti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-86, affd. 70
Fed. Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2003); Duffield v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-53; Kuglin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-51. The
Appeals officer is not required to provide verification to
petitioner at the hearing. See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.
162, 167 (2002); see also Holliday v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-172.
Petitioner argues that the refusal by the Appeals officer to
permit petitioner to make an audio recording of the hearing was
improper. Commencing with petitioner’s filing of the Forms
1040NR, petitioner has made statements and requests and advanced
contentions and arguments that the Court has found to be
frivolous and/or groundless. Consequently, even though we held
in Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8 (2003), that section
7521(a)(1) requires the Appeals Office to allow a taxpayer to
make an audio recording of a hearing, we conclude that (1) it is
not necessary and will not be productive to remand this case for
another hearing in order to allow petitioner to make such an
audio recording, see Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189
(2001), and (2) it is not necessary or appropriate to reject
respondent’s determination to proceed with the collection action
as determined in the notice of determination with respect to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011