Craig A. Bratcher - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
               We turn now, on our own motion, to the award of a penalty              
          against petitioner under section 6673(a).                                   
               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 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 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 his pleadings and other filings, 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               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011