- 8 -
necessary or productive standard exists where the taxpayers rely
on frivolous or groundless arguments consistently rejected by
this and other courts.” Carrillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2005-290; see also Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra; Frey v.
Commissioner, supra; Durrenberger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2004-44; Brashear v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-196; Kemper v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195. The Court does not find it
necessary or productive to remand petitioner’s case for a second
hearing as petitioner did not raise any relevant issues relating
to his unpaid tax liabilities at his Appeals Office conference or
at trial. Petitioner has instead espoused only frivolous and
groundless arguments that the Court specifically rejected in
petitioner’s 2001 trial and again in a 2005 trial regarding a
deficiency and additions to tax for petitioner’s 2001 taxable
year. See Leggett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-185.
C. Abuse of Discretion
The existence or amounts of petitioner’s underlying tax
liabilities are not properly at issue because petitioner received
a notice of deficiency for the years in issue and had the
opportunity to dispute such liabilities at his 2001 trial.
Accordingly, the Court will review the administrative record of
the levy for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion has
occurred if the “Commissioner exercised * * * [his] discretion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011