- 6 -
the opinion in Keene v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner
was not afforded an opportunity for a recorded
conference. Further, because the requested face-to-
face hearing was not held, there still exists a
possibility that petitioner might have raised one or
more nonfrivolous issues if the meeting had proceeded.
In this situation, the Court declines to
characterize the failure to allow recording as harmless
error. Hence, the Court will deny respondent’s motion
for summary judgment at this time. As in Keene v.
Commissioner, supra at 19, however, we admonish
petitioner that if he persists in making primarily
frivolous and groundless tax protester arguments in any
further proceedings with respect to this case, rather
than raising relevant issues, as specified in section
6330(c)(2), the Court may consider granting a future
motion for summary judgment. In such an instance, the
Court would also be in a position to impose a penalty
under section 6673(a)(1).
This case was called from the calendar of the trial session
of the Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, on December 6, 2004, and a
trial was held that afternoon. At the outset, the Court reminded
petitioner that respondent’s motion for summary judgment had been
denied by our November 10, 2004, order because recording was not
permitted, and we explained as follows:
THE COURT: And as of that time the arguments that
had been made by you in the record that I was reviewing
were deemed by me to be frivolous protester arguments
that had not been sustained by the Courts in other
cases, and whose precedent I have to follow.
* * * * * * *
THE COURT: But that clearly you were correct in
noting that you had the right to record your hearing
and that that right had not been afforded you, and
therefore you never got your face-to-face hearing,
which you are also entitled to.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011