William M. Leggett - Page 8

                                        - 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