Angela Matthews - Page 11
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 1995 > Angela Matthews - Page 11
- 11 -
Commissioner, supra at 546. Despite being admonished by the
Court, Mr. Ray proceeded to make frivolous nonsensical arguments
at trial and on brief. His statements with respect to lack of
knowledge of matters relating to assertions and arguments made
before this Court reflect a failure to carefully review the
evidence in this case and do the appropriate research to properly
prepare the case.7 The fact of his having filed an entry of
appearance the day before trial is not an acceptable excuse for
counsel's action in this case. Such conduct has multiplied the
proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously.
We also note that this is not the first time Mr. Ray has
appeared before this Court to advance tax protester claims. In
Reichenbach v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-369, Mr. Ray
unsuccessfully argued that "respondent may only determine a
deficiency for a taxpayer when she receives a tax return `filled
out and filed by the taxpayer.'" Mr. Ray also argued in
Reichenbach that respondent bears the burden of proof because
Rule 142(a) is without statutory support. The Court explained
that these arguments, which are virtually identical to those
raised here, are frivolous tax protester claims. Therefore, Mr.
Ray was well aware that such claims are frivolous, and yet he
continued to advance them in the present case. We conclude
7 See also Rule 33(b); Versteeg v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
339 (1988); Shamam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-77.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011