"...petitioners did not raise in their requests any "specified frivolous position" identified by the IRS in Notice 2008-14, supra, nor did they raise any moral, religious, political, constitutional, conscientious, or similar objection. Indeed, the attachments stated that petitioners specifically withdrew any constitutional, moral, political, religious, or conscientious arguments that they may have previously made and any legal positions that are classified and published
by the IRS as frivolous or groundless, including any arguments that the courts have determined are frivolous or groundless. *** We think that it was improper for the Appeals Office to treat those portions of petitioners' requests that set forth issues identified as legitimate in the determination letters as if they were never submitted without explaining how the requests reflect a desire to delay or impede Federal tax administration. *** we conclude that the settlement officer could not
treat petitioners' entire request as if it were never submitted. Section 6330(g) requires the Appeals Office to determine the specific portions of petitioners' request for a hearing that are regarded as frivolous or reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws, leaving for hearing only the legitimate and bona fide issues petitioners raised. The Appeals Office has not yet done this. Thornberry v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 356 (T.C. 2011).
We also agree with the tax court's assessment that the IRS's boilerplate letter rejecting Ryskamp's arguments as frivolous was inadequate. RYSKAMP v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, No. 14-1042 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 14, 2015).
