- 12 -
Petitioner’s filings in this case, including the briefs, bear all
of the earmarks of style and content of documents filed by Wilde.
Petitioner is one of a group of people who pursue groundless
arguments solely for the purpose of delay. By their procedural
gimmicks, petitioner and his advisers seek to create a circular
dilemma for respondent. They institute TEFRA proceedings that
are duly dismissed, and then they assert the absence of a TEFRA
proceeding in an attempt to block the individual deficiency case.
The inevitable conclusion is that the proceedings are maintained
for delay. Petitioner and those with whom he is associated
obviously intend to clutter the Court’s docket with
nonmeritorious cases so that the scheduling of trials and
resolution of cases will be impeded. Such conditions were among
those that led Congress in 1989 to increase the amount of the
penalty under section 6673 from $5,000 to $25,000. See H. Rept.
101-247 (1989) to accompany the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2106, 2400-2401. Penalties
have been awarded in comparable cases. See Ward v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2002-147; Ruocco v. Commissioner, supra; Lipari v.
Commissioner, supra. In this case, we conclude that a penalty
under section 6673 is appropriate in the amount of $20,000.
To reflect the effect of respondent’s concessions,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011