Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Cheryl D. Flathers is a nut-case tax protester challenging liability for taxes at hearing on collection. Tax Court allowed the collection and imposed a $1,500 fine.
Where the hell does the Tax Court get these numbers?
Anyway the interesting twist in this case was the dispute over whether Flathers would be allowed to record the Collection Due Process hearing. After she requested to do so, she was notified that such recordings were at the discretion of the IRS and that they recently decided to stop allowing them to be recorded. She was sent a copy of the memo sent throughout the service, which include the background about the history of allowing recording. She secretly recorded the hearing anyway.
I disagree with the IRS not allowing these hearing to be recorded, but this needs to be challenged by someone other than a nut-case tax protester. Why did Ms. Flathers want to record the hearing anyway? To prove what an ass she�s making of herself? Seriously, who does she expect to convince with this �evidence�? The Tax Court, whose legitimacy the protesters refuse to accept? The circuit courts, whom I assume routinely throw out appeals on these issues? What is the point?
I don�t know about Nevada law, but in California, secretly recording conversations is a felony.