-9- Petitioners’ contentions are frivolous and groundless and will not be refuted with copious citation and extended discussion.7 See Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138-139 (2000) (citing Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)). Consequently, although respondent improperly refused to allow any recording of the section 6330 hearing, see sec. 7521(a)(1), we conclude that (1) it is unnecessary and would not be productive to remand the instant case to the Appeals Office for another section 6330 hearing in order to allow petitioners to make an audio recording and (2) it is unnecessary and inappropriate to reject respondent’s determination, see Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001); Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever the 7Petitioners’ contentions are substantially similar to contentions raised by the taxpayer in Hiland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-225 (Taxpayer’s complaints with respect to the administrative proceedings included the following: No legitimate hearing under sec. 6330 ever took place; taxpayer was denied the opportunity to raise issues he deemed “relevant” (e.g., the “existence” of the underlying tax liability); and cited documentation had not been produced and/or addressed (e.g., record of the assessments, statutory notice and demand for payment, any “valid notice of deficiency”, and verification from the Secretary that all applicable requirements were met)”. In that case, we held that the contentions raised by the taxpayer were frivolous and/or groundless, and we imposed a penalty pursuant to sec. 6673.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011