- 10 -
(3) respondent delayed 3 years in providing the “sham”
hearing in this case; and
(4) without facts, an assessment is arbitrary; an arbitrary
assessment presents a justiciable controversy that the Court must
decide.
With the exception of the argument regarding the timeliness
of his hearing request,3 all of petitioner’s arguments are
frivolous and groundless. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d
934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (taxpayer’s argument that he is not a
taxpayer is frivolous); Tolotti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
86 (taxpayer’s argument that Commissioner must identify
constitutional and statutory provisions that make taxpayer liable
for Federal income tax is frivolous), affd. 70 Fed. Appx. 971
(9th Cir. 2003). It is well established that we need not refute
frivolous arguments with copious citation and extended
discussion. Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138-139
(2000) (citing Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1984)).
Petitioner complains about the alleged bias of Ms. Chadwell
and describes the hearing as a sham because Ms. Chadwell would
not engage in a discussion of the legal basis for his
3After reviewing petitioner’s mailing receipts at the
hearing, Settlement Officer Chadwell conceded at the hearing that
petitioner had filed a timely hearing request under sec. 6330 and
that petitioner is entitled to a hearing under sec. 6330 and to
appeal the determination that resulted therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011