- 5 - error assigned by petitioner was that the settlement officer refused to permit the collection hearing to be recorded. Petitioner then prayed that this Court issue an order requiring respondent to show cause why the determination should not be vacated; find the determination arbitrary, capricious, not supported by the evidence, and unreasonable; vacate the July 31, 2003, determination; and award petitioner costs and fees incurred in the prosecution of this action.4 On September 20, 2004, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121. Petitioner was directed to file any response to respondent’s motion on or before September 30, 2004. Having not heard from petitioner, the Court on October 4, 2004, issued an order denying the motion for summary judgment, ruling as follows: As respondent correctly notes in the motion for summary judgment, issues raised by petitioner during the administrative process, i.e., in her Form 12153, have been repeatedly rejected by this and other courts or are refuted by the documentary record. Moreover, the Court observes that maintenance of similar arguments has served as grounds for imposition of penalties under section 6673. However, the case in its current posture does present a procedural shortcoming. On July 8, 2003, this Court issued Keene v. Commissioner, supra at 19, in which it was held that taxpayers are entitled, pursuant to section 7521(a)(1), to audio record section 6330 hearings. The taxpayer in 4 The Court notes that to the extent that the petition seeks reasonable administrative and/or litigation costs pursuant to sec. 7430, any such claim is premature and will not be further addressed. See Rule 231.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011