- 8 - administrative process and in his petition to this Court were frivolous tax protester type arguments. We do not address petitioner’s frivolous arguments with somber reasoning and copious citations of precedent, as to do so might suggest that these arguments possess some degree of colorable merit. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). To the extent petitioner complains of not receiving a face- to-face hearing, this Court has held that it is neither necessary nor productive to remand cases to an Appeals Office for face-to- face hearings when a taxpayer raises only frivolous arguments. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001). Petitioner was not current in filing his income tax returns, having failed to file for taxable years 1999, 2003, and 2004. Petitioner was not eligible for, nor did he submit, any collection alternatives. We conclude that, although the telephonic conference terminated prematurely, petitioner did receive a hearing as required by sections 6320(b) and 6330(c)(3).2 Mrs. Magee verified that all applicable laws and administrative procedures had been met, that she had not had any prior involvement with respect to petitioner’s tax liability, and that the proposed collection activity was no more intrusive than necessary. 2Although petitioner’s request for a hearing was pursuant to sec. 6320, sec. 6320(c) provides that sec. 6330(c) applies.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007