-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