Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 87




                                       - 87 -                                         
          continuing to advance the specific arguments and contentions                
          which they had presented in their trial memorandum and which we             
          found in that Order to be frivolous and/or groundless.  Any such            
          position ignores the September 19, 2000 Order.  That Order                  
          stated:  “In the event that petitioners continue to advance                 
          frivolous and/or groundless contentions, the Court will be                  
          inclined to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on peti-              
          tioners under section 6673.”  The September 19, 2000 Order did              
          not advise petitioners that the Court will be inclined to impose            
          a penalty under section 6673 only in the event that they continue           
          to advance the same arguments and contentions that they presented           
          in their trial memorandum.                                                  
               Petitioners also appear to be taking the position that we              
          should not impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because they           
          refrained from making any challenge whatsoever to the Court’s               
          jurisdiction and authority at trial and on brief.  That position            
          ignores the reasons that respondent advances on brief in support            
          of the imposition of a penalty under section 6673(a)(1).  Those             
          reasons are that, after we informed petitioners in the September            
          19, 2000 Order that we would be inclined to impose a penalty                
          under section 6673(a)(1) if they continued to advance frivolous             
          and/or groundless contentions, petitioners continued to advance             
          frivolous and groundless contentions challenging the Court’s                
          jurisdiction in petitioners’ motion to dismiss that they filed on           






Page:  Previous  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011