Thomas G. Brenner - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
                    Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that --                      
                         (A) proceedings before it have been                          
                    instituted or maintained by the taxpayer                          
                    primarily for delay, (or)                                         
                         (B) the taxpayer’s position in such                          
                    proceeding is frivolous or groundless, * * *                      
                    the Tax Court, in its decision, may require                       
                    the taxpayer to pay to the United States a                        
                    penalty not in excess of $25,000.                                 
               In the event that petitioner continues to advance                      
               frivolous and/or groundless contentions and arguments,                 
               the Court will be inclined to impose a penalty not in                  
               excess of $25,000 on petitioner under section                          
               6673(a)(1).                                                            
               In an order dated February 4, 2002, the Court granted a                
          similar motion by respondent for a protective order.  In that               
          order, petitioner was again cautioned that the Court would be               
          inclined to impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) if he                 
          continued to advance frivolous and/or groundless arguments.                 
               In December 2001, respondent served petitioner with                    
          interrogatories and requests for the production of documents and            
          admissions.  Petitioner’s answers to respondent’s requests for              
          production of documents, interrogatories, and admissions                    
          indicated that he was asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege               
          against self-incrimination.  Respondent filed motions to compel             
          production of documents, to compel responses to interrogatories,            
          and to review sufficiency of petitioner’s response to request for           
          admissions.  A hearing on respondent’s motions was held on March            
          11, 2002, in Jacksonville, Florida.  At the hearing, counsel for            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011