-10-
set forth in their petition, is that the Appeals officer did not
perform the required verification. For the reasons stated above,
we have rejected that argument in accordance with our firmly
established jurisprudence. Thus, as was true in Lunsford v.
Commissioner, supra, and pursuant thereto, we consider it neither
necessary or productive to remand this case to Appeals to hold a
hearing. We sustain respondent’s determination as to the
proposed levy as a permissible exercise of discretion.
We now turn to the requested penalty under section 6673.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the 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. We have repeatedly indicated our willingness to
impose such penalties in lien and levy review proceedings.
Roberts v. Commissioner, supra. Moreover, we have imposed
penalties in such proceedings when the taxpayer raised frivolous
and groundless arguments. Yacksyzn v. Commissioner, supra;
Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213; Davis v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87.
In accordance with the firmly established law set forth
above, we conclude that petitioners’ positions in this proceeding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011