- 5 -
petitioner’s 1999 tax year. Petitioner filed an objection to the
motion for summary judgment.
On September 7, 2004, petitioner filed with the Court a
motion for remand, in which petitioner requested that we remand
the case to the Appeals Office for a section 6330 hearing to be
held. Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion for
remand requesting that the Court deny petitioner’s motion for
remand because the failure to allow an audio recording at the
scheduled section 6330 hearing was harmless error.
On November 3, 2004, we issued an Order granting
petitioner’s motion for remand and remanding the case to
respondent’s Appeals Office for the purpose of affording
petitioner a section 6330 hearing that might be recorded by
either or both parties pursuant to our holding in Keene v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8 (2003). We also ordered the parties to
file status reports with the Court on or before January 18, 2005,
and ordered that respondent’s motion for summary judgment be held
in abeyance. The Order also warned petitioner:
As in Keene v. Commissioner, supra at 19, 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 will consider granting respondent’s 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).
On December 30, 2004, respondent filed with the Court a
status report, which stated that an Appeals officer had a face-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011