- 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