- 16 -
equal or exceed the threshold set forth in section 6654(d). Sec.
6654; Philips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-540, affd. without
published opinion 99 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1996). The burden of
proof is on petitioners to establish that they qualify for an
exception under section 6654(e). Rule 142(a); Philips v.
Commissioner, supra. Petitioners do not qualify for any
exception. Accordingly, we affirm respondent's determinations of
these additions to tax.9
Issue 5. Sanctions Under Section 6673
Prior to trial, respondent filed a motion requesting the
imposition of a penalty against each petitioner in the amount of
$25,000 under section 6673(a), on the ground that petitioners
failed to comply with the Court's orders and rules in preparing
these cases for trial, and because they instituted the
proceedings primarily for delay. Petitioner, in response,
continued to assert groundless tax protester arguments.
We begin by noting that petitioners are not strangers to
this Court. Rather they have a well established history as tax
protesters. In fact, the petitions originally filed in this case
made various frivolous and groundless allegations, which failed
to address the issues mentioned in respondent's notices of
deficiency sent to petitioners. Petitioner raised similar
9 With respect to Carolyn Webb, the additions to tax imposed
on her pursuant to sec. 6654 are limited to the community
property income attributed to her by respondent in the notice of
deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011