Charles P. Dewitt - Page 8

                                        -  -8                                           
               Since petitioner has raised only frivolous legal issues in             
          his petition, which, as a matter of law, do not sustain his                 
          position, the respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings             
          is properly taken.  Rule 123; Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.               
          403, 408 (1984).                                                            
               Respondent in her answer in this case affirmatively asserted           
          the application to this case of section 6673.  In view of the               
          facts that:  (1) Respondent's motion cited cases holding a                  
          position identical to that taken in this case is frivolous;                 
          (2) the order of this Court dated August 9, 1995, also cited                
          cases holding positions similar to the position taken by                    
          petitioner in the instant case to be frivolous; (3) the order of            
          this Court dated August 9, 1995, stated that if petitioner did              
          not elect to amend his petition to allege factual disagreements             
          with respondent's determination, respondent's motion would be               
          granted, and (4) the order dated August 9, 1995, stated that if             
          petitioner did not elect to amend his petition he should state              
          his reasons, if any, why this Court should not award damages to             
          the United States under section 6673 on the grounds that this               
          case was instituted primarily for delay and that petitioner's               
          position in the case is frivolous or groundless, we conclude that           
          a penalty under section 6673 should be determined against                   
          petitioner.  Petitioner in his response to respondent's motion              
          for judgment on the pleadings stated no reason why this Court               
          should not award damages to the United States under section 6673            




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011