- 6 -
We have dealt with many of them before. E.g., Nieman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-533; Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-509, affd. without published opinion 42 F.3d 1391 (7th
Cir. 1994). Moreover, as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has remarked: "We perceive no need to refute these
arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some
colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1984). Because the petition fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, we shall grant respondent's motion
to dismiss. See Scherping v. Commissioner, 747 F.2d 478 (8th
Cir. 1984).
We turn now to respondent's request for 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 deficiency
in income tax or the additions to tax determined by respondent in
the notice of deficiency. Rather, the record demonstrates that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011