-19-
if he persisted with his frivolous arguments. Irrespective of
whether his conduct was in bad faith, it was certainly willful.
Thus, the section 6673 penalty is fully justified. May v.
Commissioner, supra at 1308-1309. We therefore grant
respondent's motion for a penalty.
Respondent states that she has spent 38 hours of attorney
time and 38 hours of the time of other employees on the case at
hand. She has also pointed out that petitioner's arguments in
this case are virtually identical to those in Santangelo v.
Commissioner, supra, in which we dismissed the case for failure
to state a claim and imposed a penalty of $2,500. We repeatedly
brought Santangelo to petitioner's attention, and the deficiency
and additions in this case are more than twice the amount of the
deficiencies and additions in Santangelo.
The section 6673(a) penalty exists to deter actions that
result in repeated failures to follow the rules to which all who
litigate before us must conform. As Judge Easterbrook said in
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d at 72:
People who wish to express displeasure with taxes must
choose other forums, and there are many available.
Taxes are onerous, no doubt, and the size of the tax
burden gives people reason to hope that they can escape
payment. Self-interest calls forth obtuseness. An
obtuse belief--even if sincerely held--is no refuge, no
warrant for imposing delay on the legal system and
costs on one's adversaries. The more costly obtuseness
becomes, the less there will be.
If the penalty is to have any likelihood of proper deterrent
effect on this petitioner and others who might be inclined to
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011