- 16 -
petitioner’s filings were confused, often unintelligible, and
sometimes reminiscent of protester rhetoric, not all of the
arguments contained in those filings were frivolous or groundless
on their face. Petitioner’s principal claim was that she is
impoverished. In fact, she may well be. Unfortunately,
petitioner did nothing to prove her financial condition at the
section 6330 hearing before the Appeals Office. Although we have
no record before us to review for abuse of discretion, that same
lack of a record forecloses any conclusion we might otherwise
have reached that petitioner’s claim of poverty was either
frivolous or groundless.3 Consequently, we shall deny that part
of respondent’s motion that seeks a penalty under section 6673.
We warn petitioner, however, that most of her arguments in this
case were, to the extent that we understood them, of the type
that might justify the imposition of a section 6673 penalty if
petitioner were to assert those arguments again in another
judicial proceeding in this Court.
Conclusion
We hold that the material facts are not in dispute and that
respondent is entitled to a summary adjudication as a matter of
law. We further hold that respondent correctly determined that
3We also note that the administrative record contains no
indication that respondent warned petitioner that her arguments
were frivolous or groundless or that her arguments might result
in the imposition of a sec. 6673 penalty.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011