- 10 -
section 6673(a)(1). However, the Court may sua sponte determine
whether to impose such a penalty.
We find that petitioner instituted and maintained this case
primarily for delay. During the examination prior to the
issuance of the notice of deficiency, the section 6330 hearing,
and the trial of this case, petitioner raised no arguments of
merit. Instead, he advanced only frivolous and groundless
arguments. In the notice of determination, respondent warned
petitioner of the possibility of a penalty under section
6673(a)(1). Additionally, petitioner is an attorney who is
admitted to practice before this Court and has represented at
least two taxpayers before the Court. See Olmos v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2007-82; Heers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-10.
Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that
petitioner understood the potential consequences of maintaining
an action primarily for delay and of raising frivolous and
groundless arguments. On the basis of the above, we shall impose
a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) in the
amount of $5,000.
We have considered all arguments made, and, to the extent
not mentioned, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or
without merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007