- 6 -
(2) referenced the section 7401 authorization requirement for
civil actions, and (3) demanded “his hearing and sanctions
against agent(s).”
On August 10, 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 10,
2004. The Court permitted the filing on October 12, 2004, of an
untimely response wherein petitioner propounded frivolous
rhetoric, including assertions of “fraud” on the part of
respondent. The Court on November 16, 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 and before us 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
presents a procedural shortcoming.
On July 8, 2003, this Court issued Keene v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 19 (2003), in which it was
held that taxpayers are entitled, pursuant to section
7521(a)(1), to audio record section 6330 hearings. The
taxpayer in that case had refused to proceed when
denied the opportunity to record, and we remanded the
case to allow a recorded Appeals hearing. Id. In
contrast, we have distinguished, and declined to
remand, cases where the taxpayer had participated in an
Appeals Office hearing, albeit unrecorded, and where
all issues raised by the taxpayer could be properly
decided from the existing record. E.g., id. at 19, 20;
Frey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-87; Durrenberger
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-44; Brashear v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-196; Kemper v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195.
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