-19-
Q [Mr. KUTTEN] Your prior Tax Court trial, was it in
this very same room, Mr. Harrell, where you’re sitting
today?
A [PETITIONER] That’s correct. Yes.
Q And did you make basically the same arguments to the
Court then?
A Basically the same argument as the issue today?
Q Yes.
A Part of the issue is the issue I’ve raised today.
Yes.
Q And the Court stated that your arguments were
frivolous. Is that not correct?
A I believe that’s correct, that that was the
terminology used someplace in the decision. Whether it was
by the Tax Court or the Appeals Court, I don’t recall.
In view of the fact that petitioner disregarded the Court’s
warning and persisted in presenting frivolous arguments that have
been firmly rejected by this Court and others in the past, and
that petitioner persisted in presenting such arguments after
having been warned twice during the course of the instant case,
we conclude that petitioner’s conduct justifies imposing a
substantial penalty on petitioner; we award a penalty to the
United States in the amount of $10,000 under the provisions of
section 6673.
To take account of the foregoing, including the matters
described supra notes 1 and 2,
Decision will be entered
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