Richard John Kadunc - Page 6

                                                - 6 -                                                 

            i.e., $15,600.83, the amount allowed by respondent.4  Respondent,                         
            therefore, is sustained on this issue.                                                    
                  Respondent requested that this Court impose against                                 
            petitioner the penalty under section 6673(a)(1).  As relevant                             
            herein, section 6673(a) authorizes this 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                                    
                  A petition to the Tax Court is frivolous "if it is contrary                         
            to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable                               
            argument for change in the law".  Coleman v. Commissioner, 791                            
            F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986).  Petitioner's positions, with regard                         
            to his State income tax refund, consisted solely of stale and                             
            time worn tax protester rhetoric.5  Further, petitioner has                               
            repeatedly inundated this Court with an exorbitant amount of                              
            meandering and immaterial documents.  Rather than attempting to                           

                  Respondent actually allowed a deduction of $15,600.  The                            
            difference of $.83 is due to rounding.                                                    
            5     For example, petitioner argued that an "Accord and                                  
            Satisfaction" had been executed between petitioner and respondent                         
            and could not be violated; that the "black letter of the law" is                          
            not the only law applicable to Federal income tax returns; that                           
            the Internal Revenue Service has not incorporated by reference in                         
            the Federal Register a requirement to make an income tax return,                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011