David J. Edwards - Page 37




                                       - 37 -                                         
          Penalties Under Section 6673(a)                                             
               Section 6673(a)(1) allows the Tax Court to impose a penalty            
          of up to $25,000, payable to the United States, when (A) a                  
          taxpayer institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for                 
          delay, (B) the taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is frivolous           
          or groundless, or (C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue            
          available administrative remedies.  Section 6673(a)(2) allows the           
          Tax Court to require counsel who unreasonably and vexatiously               
          multiply the proceedings before the Tax Court to pay the other              
          party’s excess costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.                        
               Respondent has asked us to impose section 6673(a)(1)                   
          penalties against petitioner because he made frivolous or                   
          groundless arguments regarding:  (1) The “Delpit” issue, (2) the            
          “Scar” issue, (3) the “Agency” issue, and, until 12 days before             
          posttrial briefs were due, (4) the abusive trust issue.  In                 
          reply, petitioner argues these were all strong and proper legal             
          arguments of first impression.  In his reply brief, petitioner              
          asks us to include in our opinion a detailed ruling on each of              
          these issues.  We consider each of these arguments--and                     
          petitioner’s request--in deciding whether to impose section                 
          6673(a)(1) sanctions against petitioner and section 6673(a)(2)              
          sanctions against petitioner’s counsel.                                     
               The “Delpit” Issue                                                     
               Petitioner argued throughout the case, despite the Court’s             






Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011