- 9 -
As relevant herein, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax
Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty
not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings
have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for
delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is
frivolous or groundless.
The record in this case convinces us that petitioner was
never interested in disputing the merits of either the
deficiencies in income taxes or the additions to tax as
determined by respondent in the notices of deficiency. Rather,
the record demonstrates that petitioner regards this case as a
vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and espouse his
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 petition and amended petition and as amplified by his Rule
50(c) statement, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011