David White - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-540, affd. without published               
          opinion 99 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1996); Santangelo v. Commissioner,           
          T.C. Memo. 1995-468, affd. without published opinion 87 F.3d 1322           
          (9th Cir. 1996); McNeel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-211,               
          affd. without published opinion 76 F.3d 387 (9th Cir. 1996);                
          Devon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-206.                                 
               In a previous case involving petitioner, White v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-459 (White I), that involved his              
          1992, 1993, and 1994 taxable years and the receipt of income from           
          the same payors that are in issue in this case, we stated:                  
                    Consistent with * * * [Parker v. Commissioner, 117 F.3d           
               785, 787 (5th Cir. 1997)], we hold that petitioner has                 
               failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.              
               In short, petitioner's assertion that respondent erred in              
               relying on reports from third-party payors in determining              
               the deficiencies in dispute, standing alone, carries no                
               weight.  * * *                                                         
                    Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax 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.  The circumstances here suggest               
               that petitioner may have instituted this proceeding                    
               primarily for purposes of delay.  However, we shall not now            
               impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1).  Nonetheless we             
               take this opportunity to admonish petitioner that the Court            
               shall strongly consider imposing such a penalty if he                  
               returns to the Court and makes similar arguments in the                
               future.                                                                
               Even though the Court dismissed White I, petitioner filed              
          his petition in this case using the same arguments as in White I,           
          even after we cautioned him that we would strongly consider                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011