- 7 -
The circumstances of the instant case are
analogous to those in Keene v. Commissioner, supra, and
diverge from those where it was determined that remand
was not necessary and would not be productive.
Critically, the notice of determination was issued on
July 18, 2003. Although this date is subsequent to the
opinion in Keene v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner was
not afforded an opportunity for a recorded conference.
Further, because the requested face-to-face hearing was
not held, there still exists a possibility that
petitioner might have raised one or more nonfrivolous
issues if the meeting had proceeded.
In this situation, the Court declines to
characterize the failure to allow recording as harmless
error. Hence, the Court will deny respondent’s motion
for summary judgment at this time. As in Keene v.
Commissioner, supra at 19, however, we admonish
petitioner that if he persists in making frivolous and
groundless tax protester arguments in any further
proceedings with respect to this case, rather than
raising relevant issues, as specified in section
6330(c)(2), the Court may consider granting a future
motion for summary judgment. In such an instance, the
Court would also be in a position to impose a penalty
under section 6673(a)(1).
On November 24, 2004, the Court also issued an order
explaining the returning unfiled of various other procedurally
improper documents received from petitioner during October and
November. We noted that the documents were “replete with
frivolous contentions and tax protester rhetoric” and, in light
of petitioner’s “continued recalcitrance”, reiterated our earlier
warning regarding penalties under section 6673.
This case was called from the calendar of the trial session
of the Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, on December 6, 2004, and a
trial was held on that date. At the outset, the Court reminded
petitioner that respondent’s motion for summary judgment had been
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