Dwight Schwersensky - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          taxpayers had advanced were frivolous and groundless, it was not            
          necessary to remand the taxpayers' case to the Office of Appeals            
          so that a second conference airing the contentions could be audio           
          recorded.                                                                   
               Petitioner was questioned by the Court at the hearing on               
          respondent's motion for summary judgment concerning the issues he           
          wished to raise at a conference on remand.  Petitioner stated               
          that the issues were the same as those listed in his request for            
          a hearing, as well as an innocent spouse claim on behalf of Mrs.            
          Schwersensky.  As discussed above, the issues raised in                     
          petitioner's hearing request are all frivolous and/or groundless.           
          As for the innocent spouse claim, Mrs. Schwersensky's entitlement           
          to relief under section 6015 is irrelevant to this case, which              
          concerns only whether respondent may proceed with his collection            
          action against petitioner.10  The remaining arguments raised by             
          petitioner are nothing more than tax protester rhetoric and                 
          legalistic gibberish.11  We do not address such arguments with              
          somber reasoning and copious citations of precedent, as to do so            
          might suggest that they possess some colorable merit.  See Crain            
          v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).                       

               10 Mrs. Schwersensky failed to petition this Court within 30           
          days of respondent's notice of determination as to her.  See sec.           
          6330(d)(1); cf. Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 271                 
          (2001) (jointly filing spouses are not a single "person" for                
          purposes of sec. 6330).                                                     
               11 See supra notes 4, 6, and 7.                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011