- 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unpublished opinion 106 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 1996); Murphy v.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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011