Robert E. Crandall - Page 14

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011