- 9 -
Respondent also seeks to have this Court award costs against
Mr. Ray pursuant to section 6673(a)(2)(A).6 For a history of
section 6673(a)(2) and a full discussion of the standards to be
considered, see Harper v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 545 (1992);
see also Murphy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-76; Leach v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-215. We stated in Murphy as
follows:
Section 6673(a)(2) is derived from section 1927 of the
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. section 1927 (1988), and it
has been held that imposition of a sanction under 28
U.S.C. section 1927 requires a "clear showing of bad
faith". See, e.g., Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265,
1273 (2d Cir. 1986); Kamen v. American Telephone &
Telegraph Co., 791 F.2d 1006, 1010 (2d Cir. 1986).
However, a minority of Courts of Appeals, including the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
do not require such a showing. Reliance Ins. Co. v.
Sweeney Corp., 792 F.2d 1137, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1986);
see also In Re Ruben, 825 F.2d 977, 983-984 (6th Cir.
1987). This Court has not decided which standard we
will apply. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]
We are satisfied that Mr. Ray acted in bad faith. The
position argued by him is frivolous and groundless. As in Sauers
v. Commissioner, petitioners' counsel did not dispute the
deficiencies and additions to tax but "raised a litany of legal
arguments typical of those asserted by 'tax protesters.'" Sauers
6 The failure of this Court to impose sanctions against
petitioners pursuant to sec. 6673 does not necessitate a finding
that these sanctions should not be levied against counsel for
petitioners as well. To the contrary, we may determine that
petitioners' counsel's actions warrant imposition of a sanction
despite our failure to impose such sanctions against petitioners.
See Harper v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533 (1992), in which this
Court granted sec. 6673 sanctions against taxpayers' counsel but
not against taxpayers.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011