Robert E. Crandall - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          documentation; and order the Government to reimburse petitioner             
          for all costs incurred in submitting the instant petition.4                 
               On September 20, 2004, respondent filed a motion for summary           
          judgment.  Petitioner filed a timely response in opposition to              
          respondent’s motion on October 12, 2004.  The response                      
          essentially reprised petitioner’s demands for a recorded hearing            
          and documentation.  The Court on November 17, 2004, issued an               
          order denying the motion for summary judgment, ruling as set                
          forth below:                                                                
                    As respondent correctly notes in the motion for                   
               summary judgment, issues raised by petitioner during                   
               the administrative process and before us have been                     
               repeatedly rejected by this and other courts or are                    
               refuted by the documentary record.  Moreover, the Court                
               observes that maintenance of similar arguments has                     
               served as grounds for imposition of penalties under                    
               section 6673.  However, the case in its current posture                
               presents a procedural shortcoming.                                     
                    On July 8, 2003, this Court issued Keene v.                       
               Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 19 (2003), in which it was                   
               held that taxpayers are entitled, pursuant to section                  
               7521(a)(1), to audio record section 6330 hearings.  The                
               taxpayer in that case had refused to proceed when                      
               denied the opportunity to record, and we remanded the                  
               case to allow a recorded Appeals hearing.  Id.  In                     
               contrast, we have distinguished, and declined to                       
               remand, cases where the taxpayer had participated in an                
               Appeals Office hearing, albeit unrecorded, and where                   
               all issues raised by the taxpayer could be properly                    
               decided from the existing record.  E.g., id. at 19, 20;                
               Frey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-87; Durrenberger                 
               v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-44; Brashear v.                       

               4 The Court notes that to the extent that the petition seeks           
          reasonable administrative and/or litigation costs pursuant to               
          sec. 7430, any such claim is premature and will not be further              
          addressed.  See Rule 231.                                                   

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