Robert E. Crandall - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-196; Kemper v.                           
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.                                     
                    The circumstances of the instant case are                         
               analogous to those in Keene v. Commissioner, supra, and                
               diverge from those where it was determined that remand                 
               was not necessary and would not be productive.                         
               Critically, because the conference was terminated when                 
               petitioner refused to turn off his recorder, no hearing                
               was ever held.  Hence, 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 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 the following day.  At the outset, the Court                 
          cautioned petitioner to be cognizant of our November 17, 2004,              
          order, explaining:                                                          
                    But I have already ruled in this order that the                   
               Appeals Officer did deny you your right to a hearing,                  
               which you had a right to record.  The Court has                        
               addressed that matter and we have determined that the                  
               Respondent, the Internal Revenue Service, was wrong in                 
               not allowing you to record your hearing.                               
                    However, we have also determined that if you don’t                
               have--if taxpayers, and not you, but if a taxpayer who                 
               wants to record a hearing has only frivolous issues                    
               which have no merit, and which this court and other                    

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