Clyde E. Hack and Carole J. Hack - Page 10




                                        -10-                                          
          supra; Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000); Hoffman v.             
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-198.  Moreover, we have imposed               
          penalties when the underlying tax liability was not at issue and            
          the taxpayer raised frivolous and groundless arguments as to the            
          legality of the Federal tax laws.  Yacksyzn v. Commissioner,                
          supra; Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213; Davis v.                
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87.  We do the same here.                     
          Petitioners’ arguments in this Court are mainly groundless and              
          frivolous, and it appears to us that petitioners instituted and             
          maintained this proceeding primarily for delay.2  Pursuant to               
          section 6673, we require petitioners to pay to the United States            
          a penalty of $2,000.                                                        
               We have considered all arguments made by the parties and               
          have found those arguments not discussed herein to be irrelevant            
          and/or without merit.  To reflect the foregoing,                            
                                                  An appropriate order and            
                                             decision will be entered for             
                                             respondent.                              






               2 At and after the Appeals Office hearing, petitioners were            
          made aware of our opinions in Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.             
          576 (2000), and Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35 (2000).  In              
          Pierson, taxpayers advancing frivolous and groundless claims and            
          instituting the underlying proceedings for the purposes of delay            
          were warned that the Court would impose penalties.  This warning            
          went unheeded by petitioners.                                               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  

Last modified: May 25, 2011