- 10 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-17; Armstrong v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-224. Thus, a face-to-face hearing is not invariably
required.
Respondent sent three letters to petitioner stating that he
would be allowed a face-to-face hearing if he would advise
respondent of the relevant issues he wished to discuss.
Petitioner responded to two of those letters, but did not raise
any relevant issues. Petitioner was also given the opportunity
to have a telephone hearing but did not participate.
Additionally, petitioner did not submit any documentation to
respondent to be considered in an administrative review of his
file.
Because no hearing had been conducted, we declined to grant
respondent’s 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 to identify any relevant issues he wished to raise that
could warrant further consideration of the merits of his case by
respondent or this Court. Petitioner, however, failed to offer
any relevant issues of merit.
In the light of the above and in consideration of
petitioner’s frivolous arguments, discussed infra, a face-to-face
hearing in this case would not have been, nor would it be,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011