- 14 -
lack of a recording when to do so is not necessary and would not
be productive. See, e.g., Frey v. Commissioner, supra;
Durrenberger v. Commissioner, supra; Brashear v. Commissioner,
supra; Kemper v. Commissioner, supra; see also Keene v.
Commissioner, supra at 19-20; Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C.
183, 189 (2001). A principal scenario falling short of the
necessary or productive standard exists where the taxpayers rely
on frivolous or groundless arguments consistently rejected by
this and other courts. See, e.g., Frey v. Commissioner, supra;
Brashear v. Commissioner, supra; Kemper v. Commissioner, supra.
Because no hearing had been conducted at all in petitioner’s
case, we declined to grant respondent’s initial motion for
summary judgment. The record as it then existed did not
foreclose the possibility that petitioner might have raised valid
arguments had a hearing been held. Accordingly, we provided
petitioner an opportunity before the Court at the trial session
in Phoenix to identify any legitimate issues she wished to raise
that could warrant further consideration of the merits of her
case by the Appeals Office or this Court. Petitioner, however,
merely offered generalized remarks regarding Forms 4340 and then
expressly affirmed that she had no issues to raise other than
those set forth in her Form 12153 and quoted in the Court’s
October 4, 2004, order.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011