- 25 -
A taxpayer’s failure to provide the Commissioner with information
requested and his failure to offer evidence at trial pertaining
to the substantive issues raised in the notice of deficiency are
evidence that a suit in this Court was instituted primarily for
delay. Stamos v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 624, 638 (1990), affd.
without published opinion 956 F.2d 1168 (9th Cir. 1992). A
taxpayer’s position is frivolous “if it is contrary to
established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument
for change in the law. * * * The inquiry is objective. If a
person should have known that his position is groundless, a court
may and should impose sanctions.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791
F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986); Booker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-261; see also Hansen v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1464, 1470
(9th Cir. 1987) (apparent finding that petitioner should have
known that claim was frivolous allows for section 6673 penalty).
Based on the record in this case, we conclude that, in many
respects, petitioner’s position in this proceeding is both
frivolous and groundless and petitioner undertook certain actions
primarily for delay.
2. Background
Petitioner’s initial petition lacks any explanation of the
basis of her disagreement with respondent and fails to comply
with Rule 31(a), which states that the purpose of the pleadings
is to give the parties and the Court fair notice of the matters
in controversy and the basis for their respective positions.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011