James Vernon Williams - Page 7

                                        - 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