- 12 -
his claim or argument was frivolous. Hansen v. Commissioner, 820
F.2d 1464, 1470 (9th Cir. 1987).
In response to the Court's questions the following evidence
was introduced at trial:
(The Court) Q Are you aware of the provisions of
section 6673 of the Internal Revenue
Code, the damages provision?
(Petitioner) A I am.
(The Court) Q And are you aware of the many cases
that have addressed themselves to
various and sundry tax protestor
arguments?
(Petitioner) A Your Honor, [respondent's] Counsel has
stated that I am a tax protestor, which
is a conclusion that has yet to be
proved.
After painstakingly listening to petitioners' groundless
arguments at trial and reading through the same in their briefs,
we conclude that petitioners are indeed tax protesters.
Petitioners' arguments include tax protester rhetoric and
legalistic gibberish, which they should have known are frivolous
under established law. Petitioners' frivolous "position" (within
the meaning of section 6673(a)(1)(B)) is that wages are immune
from tax.
In view of the foregoing, we will sua sponte exercise our
discretion under section 6673(a)(1) and require each petitioner
to pay a penalty to the United States in the amount of $2,500.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011