- 11 -
taxpayer may raise, and the hearing officer must consider,
relevant issues raised by the taxpayer in a section 6330 hearing.
See sec. 6330(c)(2). However, it is well established that the
Commissioner and the courts need not consider or refute frivolous
arguments with copious citation and extended discussion.
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138-139 (2000) (citing
Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)). Mr.
Climan provided petitioner a meaningful opportunity to present
relevant, nonfrivolous arguments why the levy should not be
allowed to proceed, but petitioner repeatedly refused to provide
any such arguments or information necessary to support them. Mr.
Sample made several requests for information regarding
petitioner’s financial condition both before and during the
hearing, but petitioner failed to provide any such information.
Accordingly, we find that Mr. Sample did not abuse his discretion
in terminating petitioner’s section 6330 hearing. There is a
limit to the tax system’s tolerance for unproductive and
frivolous exchanges regarding a taxpayer’s obligations to file
returns and pay tax. Kolker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-
288.
On this record, we conclude that there is no genuine issue
of material fact requiring a trial in this case, and we hold that
respondent is entitled to the entry of a decision sustaining the
proposed levy as a matter of law.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011