- 25 -
Herbst’s and Mr. Herbst’s respective responses to respondent’s
motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution in those cases and
(2) section 6673(a)(1), the brief that petitioners filed in these
cases on February 15, 2002, contained statements, contentions,
and arguments that the Court found to be frivolous and/or ground-
less and did not set forth any valid reason why the Court should
not dismiss for lack of prosecution the cases at docket Nos.
10001-00 and 10002-00.
With respect to the accuracy-related penalties under section
6662(a) at issue in the cases at docket Nos. 10001-00 and 10002-
00, the Court found in Herbst I that respondent satisfied the
burden of production that respondent maintained respondent had
with respect to those penalties.
With respect to that part of respondent’s motion to dismiss
for lack of prosecution in each of the cases at docket Nos.
10001-00 and 10002-00 asking the Court to impose a penalty under
section 6673(a)(1) on petitioner in each of those cases, the
Court found in Herbst I that Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst instituted
the proceedings in those respective cases primarily for delay and
that their respective positions in those cases were frivolous
and/or groundless. We held in Herbst I that Ms. Herbst was
liable in the case at docket No. 10001-00 for a penalty under
section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of $25,000 and that Mr. Herbst
was liable in the case at docket No. 10002-00 for a penalty under
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011