- 10 -
collection and imposed a $4,000 penalty under section 6673(a)
against the taxpayer.
Petitioner’s motion to dismiss was called for hearing in Las
Vegas, Nevada. Petitioner and counsel for respondent appeared
and were heard. Thereafter, by Order dated December 20, 2001,
the Court denied petitioner’s motion. Notably, the last
paragraph of that order stated as follows:
Petitioner is admonished that the Court can, and
may, impose a penalty against him under section 6673 in
an amount up to $25,000, if the Court concludes that he
instituted and/or maintained this proceeding primarily
for purposes of delay or if the Court deems
petitioner’s position in this proceeding to be
frivolous and/or groundless. See Pierson v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000).
G. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment
As stated, respondent filed a Motion For Summary Judgment
And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673. Respondent
contends that petitioner is barred under section 6330(c)(2)(B)
from challenging the existence or amount of his underlying tax
liability in this proceeding because petitioner received a notice
of deficiency for the tax in question. Respondent also contends
that the Appeals officer’s review of transcripts from
respondent’s computer systems, including the literal transcript
that was provided to petitioner during the Appeals Office hearing
on April 11, 2001, satisfied the verification requirement of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011