- 7 -
delay or that petitioner’s position in this proceeding is
frivolous or groundless. Although petitioner’s position clearly
has neither legal merit nor factual support, we have no basis in
this record for assessing petitioner’s motives in instituting and
maintaining the proceeding. There is no evidence in the Court’s
records that petitioner has previously been a litigant in this
Court. Nor is there any evidence in the record of this case that
petitioner had received any prior warnings in this proceeding, as
would have occurred if respondent had filed a motion to dismiss
the petition on the grounds that it failed to state a claim on
the basis of which relief could be granted.3 In the absence of a
basis in this record for assessing petitioner’s motives, see May
v. Commissioner, supra at 1306-1308, we shall not impose a
penalty under section 6673(a).
Petitioner’s unwillingness to dispose of this case by
agreement creates the impression that petitioner may wish to file
an appeal. We conclude by informing petitioner, as we have
3 The Court generally responds to such a motion by directing
the taxpayer to file a proper amended petition, as required by
Rule 34(b), setting forth with specificity each error made by
respondent in the statutory notice and separate statements of
fact on which the assignments of error are based. This procedure
gives the Court an opportunity to tell the taxpayer that her
arguments are tax protester arguments that have no merit, that
for the taxpayer to persist in making them would waste everyone’s
time, and to warn the taxpayer that to remain on her original
course will result in the imposition of sanctions under sec.
6673(a). If the taxpayer fails to respond to the Court’s order
or to amend the petition, we generally dismiss the case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011