- 8 -
Office for a hearing under that section. Respondent disagrees on
both points.
We need not resolve the issue of whether the June 8, 2004
telephone call constituted an Appeals Office hearing under
section 6320(b). We conclude that that issue is not material to
our determining whether to grant respondent’s motion. Throughout
the period starting at least as early as petitioner’s filing with
respondent petitioner’s request for an Appeals Office hearing and
ending with his filing with the Court petitioner’s response to
respondent’s motion (petitioner’s response), petitioner has made
statements, contentions, arguments, and requests that the Court
finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. We conclude that (1) it
is not necessary and will not be productive to remand this case
to the Appeals Office for a hearing under section 6320(b), 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 petitioner’s unpaid liability
for 1996, see id.
We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material
fact regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
Petitioner did not file a petition with the Court with
respect to the notice of deficiency that respondent issued to him
relating to his taxable year 1996. Where, as is the case here,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011