Gaylon L. Harrell - Page 5

               interested only in using the Federal courts to propound his            
               misguided views on the Federal income tax system, not in               
               disputing the merits of either the deficiencies in tax or              
               the additions to tax determined by respondent.  See Harrell            
               v. United States, 13 F.3d 232, 235 (7th Cir. 1993)                     
               (“Harrell’s challenge to the tax assessment is frivolous”);            
               Harrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-406 (petitioner’s             
               argument declared frivolous and sanctions imposed under                
               section 6673), affd. without published opinion 72 F.3d 132             
               (7th Cir. 1995).  Petitioner should nevertheless note that             
               in view of his past actions, his persistent assertion in               
               this case of frivolous and groundless arguments is likely to           
               result in section 6673 sanctions larger than those                     
               previously imposed upon him.                                           
               In due course, the instant case was set for trial.  During             
          the preliminary proceedings at the trial session, the following             
                    THE COURT:  All right.  Now, Mr. Harrell, before I ask            
               you about an opening statement, I guess one of the things              
               that I must remind you is that Judge Dean in his opinion               
               stated that you were warned that the Court might impose a              
               penalty under Section 6673 against you, and that matter is             
               also part of our proceedings.  And you should note, by the             
               way, that there have been occasions in which this Court has            
               ended up ruling for the taxpayer on a dispute about fraud,             
               and still ended up imposing the penalty under Section 6673             
               because of the nature of the taxpayer’s arguments.  So that,           
               too, in addition to the fraud addition to tax for 1993 is              
               before us at this point.                                               
                    Now, Mr. Harrell, do you wish to make an opening                  
               statement, and do you wish to have your trial memorandum               
               filed as part of your opening statement?                               
                    Mr. HARRELL:  Yes.  I would like to have my trial                 
               memorandum with exhibits filed on record.  That’s correct.             
               The Court then noted that the document that petitioner                 
          offered was rather bulky and appeared to include a number of                
          different items.  The following ensued:                                     
                    THE COURT:  Let’s do it this way.  Mr. Harrell, would             
               you look at this package and just make sure that we’ve got             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011