- 8 - audio recording of a section 6330 hearing. Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 16, 19 (2003). However, it is not necessary or productive to remand this case to respondent’s Appeals Office merely to provide the petitioner a recorded hearing where he previously attended and participated in a section 6330 hearing. Id. at 19; Durrenberger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-44; Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195; see also Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra at 189. In the present case, petitioner participated in his section 6330 hearing. In addition, we note that petitioner has only advanced contentions, arguments, and questions that the Court finds to be frivolous. Remanding this case to Appeals, and thus allowing petitioner to continue to advance the same frivolous arguments, would not be productive. For these reasons, we conclude that any error made by respondent in not allowing petitioner to record the hearing was harmless. See Kemper v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner also argues that respondent erred in rejecting petitioner’s proposed collection alternative. Petitioner testified, and the notice of determination reflects, that he offered to pay his outstanding tax liability in full at his section 6330 hearing “if [respondent] can show me which Internal Revenue Code section makes me liable.” This Court has found such an argument to be frivolous. Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011