- 13 -
As a final matter, we raise on our motion the question of
whether we should impose a penalty against petitioner under
section 6673(a)(1). 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.
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). Aside from the issues which were
settled concerning petitioner's investment in Coram Taxvest
Windfarms, petitioner's position, as articulated in his
pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and Rule 50(c)
statements, consists solely of tax protester rhetoric and
legalistic gibberish. Based on well-established law, we find
that petitioner's position is frivolous and groundless.
We are also satisfied that, following settlement of the
Coram Taxvest Windfarms issues, petitioner maintained these
proceedings primarily for purposes of delay. We flatly rejected
petitioner's tax protester arguments earlier in these proceedings
when we granted respondent's motions for partial summary
judgment. Fox v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-37. In this
light, it is clear that petitioner filed his motions for summary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011