- 14 -
arguments that the Court found to be frivolous and groundless.9
In that Order, the Court reminded petitioner about section
6673(a)(1) and admonished him as follows:
In the event that petitioner continues to advance
frivolous and/or groundless statements, 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), I.R.C.
On March 17, 2006, the Court received from petitioner a
pretrial memorandum (petitioner’s pretrial memorandum) that the
Court had filed as of that date. Petitioner’s pretrial memoran-
dum contained (1) certain statements, contentions, arguments,
and/or requests that, although stated somewhat differently, are
very similar to certain statements, contentions, arguments,
and/or requests that petitioner previously advanced and
(2) certain additional statements, contentions, arguments, and/or
requests that petitioner did not previously advance and that the
Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.
Discussion
Jurisdictional Matter
The Court does not have jurisdiction over a frivolous return
penalty under section 6702. Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.
9The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
and/or arguments in petitioner’s amended petition are very
similar to the frivolous and/or groundless statements, conten-
tions, and/or arguments in the petitions filed with the Court by
certain other taxpayers. See, e.g., Copeland v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-46; Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45.
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