Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon - Page 20




                                       - 20 -                                         
          unpublished opinion 106 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 1996); Murphy v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-76.                                           
          In Harper v. Commissioner, supra, counsel for the taxpayer                  
          (1) failed to comply with the Court's order to produce documents            
          requested by the Commissioner pursuant to discovery, (2) filed a            
          frivolous motion for summary judgment, (3) failed to file a                 
          proper trial memorandum, (4) failed to prepare for trial as                 
          directed by the Court, and (5) failed to respond to the                     
          Commissioner's motion for sanctions.  In that case, we held that            
          counsel for the taxpayer had unreasonably and vexatiously                   
          multiplied the proceedings by displaying a contemptuous disregard           
          for the Court's Rules and orders, acting in bad faith, and                  
          knowingly abusing the judicial process throughout the course of             
          the proceeding.  See id. at 549.                                            
               In Harper v. Commissioner, supra at 545, noting the dearth             
          of judicial opinions interpreting and applying section                      
          6673(a)(2), we relied upon case law under 28 U.S.C. section 1927            
          for guidance on the level of misconduct justifying sanctions.  We           
          found that most Courts of Appeals require a showing of bad faith            
          as a condition of imposing sanctions.  See Oliveri v. Thompson,             
          803 F.2d 1265, 1273 (2d Cir. 1986).  The Court of Appeals for the           
          Ninth Circuit (the apparent venue for appeal of these cases) has            
          held that sanctions under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 are appropriate            
          where the conduct causing multiplication of the proceedings was             






Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011