- 14 -
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. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-196; Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.
Stated otherwise, cases will not be remanded to Appeals, nor
determinations otherwise invalidated, merely on account of the
lack of a recording when to do so is not necessary and would not
be productive. See, e.g., Frey v. Commissioner, supra;
Durrenberger v. Commissioner, supra; Brashear v. Commissioner,
supra; Kemper v. Commissioner, supra; see also Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001). A principal scenario
falling short of the necessary or productive standard exists
where the taxpayers rely on frivolous or groundless arguments
consistently rejected by this and other courts. See, e.g., Frey
v. Commissioner, supra; Brashear v. Commissioner, supra; Kemper
v. Commissioner, supra.
Because no hearing had been conducted at all in petitioner’s
case, we declined to grant respondent’s motion for summary
judgment. The record as it then existed did not foreclose the
possibility that petitioner might have raised valid arguments had
a hearing been held. Accordingly, we provided petitioner an
opportunity before the Court at the trial session in Las Vegas to
identify any legitimate issues he wished to raise that could
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011