- 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
groundless.
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
4
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,
etc.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011