Thomas Olan Maxton, Jr. - Page 11



                                       - 11 -                                         
          Section 7521(a)(1) provides that a taxpayer, in connection                  
          with an interview and upon advance request, will be allowed to              
          make an audio recording of the interview.  See Notice 89-51,                
          1989-1 C.B. 691, for IRS guidelines requiring advance notice of             
          intent to record.  Petitioner did not make an advance request to            
          record the hearing as required in section 7521(a)(1).                       
          Furthermore, given that the hearing occurred, and that petitioner           
          does not assert that he raised collection alternatives that were            
          not considered by, or were not reflected in the case activity               
          records of, the settlement officer, we do not consider the issue            
          of recording decisive.  Petitioner simply has not claimed or                
          shown prejudice in the failure to permit recording.  See Frey v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-87; 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 record establishes that petitioner advanced only                        
          frivolous, groundless arguments and assertions.  Petitioner                 
          failed to raise any relevant issues of merit.  At no point in the           
          collection proceedings did petitioner offer any alternatives to             
          collection.  Any possibility that petitioner might have had a               
          valid claim to make if the telephone hearing had continued was              
          dispelled at the trial of this case.8  At that time, the Court              


               8Indeed, we denied respondent’s motion for summary judgment            
          on Dec. 8, 2005, in order that petitioner would have an                     
          opportunity to present valid arguments.                                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007