- 8 -
Petitioner was not to be deterred. As noted supra,
petitioner attempted to use respondent's witness, Mr. Langeliers,
as a foil to again subject the Court to Myrland's sottish opus
(Exhibit 3 for identification). He was not permitted to do so.
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 amply demonstrates that petitioners
were not interested in disputing the merits of the deficiency in
income tax as set forth in the notice of deficiency. Rather, the
record clearly demonstrates that petitioners attempted to use
this Court as a forum to protest the tax laws of this country and
to impose upon this Court their misguided tax protester views.
Petitioners' position, demonstrated at trial, consists
solely of their reliance on tax protester rhetoric and legalistic
gibberish. We are also convinced that petitioners instituted and
maintained this proceeding primarily, if not exclusively, for
purposes of delay. Having to deal with this matter wasted the
Court's time, as well as respondent's. Moreover, taxpayers with
genuine controversies were delayed. Petitioner's conduct in this
case was patently egregious.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011