James Vernon Williams - Page 6

                                        - 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