Tashina Baker - Page 11

                                                - 11 -                                                  
            delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is                                 
            frivolous or groundless.                                                                    
                  The record in this case convinces us that petitioner was not                          
            interested in disputing the merits of either the deficiencies in                            
            income taxes or the additions to tax determined by respondent in                            
            the notice of deficiency.  Rather, the record demonstrates that                             
            petitioner regards this case as a vehicle to protest the tax laws                           
            of this country and espouse her own misguided views.                                        
                  A petition to the Tax Court is frivolous "if it is contrary                           
            to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable                                 
            argument for change in the law."  Coleman v. Commissioner, 791                              
            F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986).  Petitioner's position, as set forth                           
            in the second amended petition, consists solely of tax protester                            
            rhetoric and legalistic gibberish.  Based on well established                               
            law, petitioner's position is frivolous and groundless.                                     
                  We are also convinced that petitioner instituted and                                  
            maintained this proceeding primarily, if not exclusively, for                               
            purposes of delay.  Having to deal with this matter wasted the                              
            Court's time, as well as respondent's.  Moreover, taxpayers with                            
            genuine controversies were delayed.                                                         
                  In view of the foregoing, we will exercise our discretion                             
            under section 6673(a)(1) and require petitioner Tashina Baker and                           
            petitioner Robert R. Baker to each pay a penalty to the United                              
            States in the amount of $500.  Coleman v. Commissioner, supra at                            
            71-72; Crain v. Commissioner, supra at 1417-1418; Coulter v.                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011