- 34 -
educated and, thus, should have been aware that the arguments
that he was making on his own behalf and on behalf of the trusts
are frivolous. Respondent argues that, had Hae-Rong Ni conducted
any research at all, he would have found that courts have
rejected similar arguments. Petitioners have failed to respond
to respondent’s memorandum, and we accept as true respondent’s
representation as to Hae-Rong Ni’s education. We also agree that
he should have known that his positions were frivolous.
Consequently, we find that petitioners’ positions in each of
these cases are frivolous.
Moreover, we believe that petitioners both instituted and
maintained these proceedings primarily for delay. All of the
petitioners filed returns and reported items of income and
deduction. Petitioners Hae-Rong and Lucy B. Ni reported total
taxes due of $2,516. None of those returns claim that
petitioners are not subject to the Federal income tax, as
petitioners claim in the petitions. The notices of deficiency
are based on the positions taken by petitioners in their returns.
Respondent’s principal adjustment questions the independent tax
existence of the trusts. Other adjustments disallow deductions
and other amounts for lack of substantiation. Petitioners have
made no attempt to meet respondent’s adjustments head on. By the
deemed admissions, petitioners admit the following: Neither
petitioners Hae-Rong or Lucy B. Ni, in their own right, nor
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011