- 10 -
named in the notice of deficiency because the name on the notice
of deficiency was spelled in capital letters is also frivolous.
See Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, affd. without
published opinion 242 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2000).
Petitioner relies on Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332
U.S. 380, 384 (1947), for the proposition that her position is
not frivolous. She contends that Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. stands for
the proposition that--
anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government
takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he
who purports to act for the Government stays within the
bounds of his authority. * * * this is so even though
* * * the agent himself may have been unaware of the
limitations upon his authority.
Petitioner contends that she acted as she did because she did not
want to risk dealing with employees of respondent who lacked
authority to act. We disagree.
It is well settled that the argument that the Commissioner
and his or her delegates have no power or authority to administer
the internal revenue laws because of invalid or nonexistent
delegations of authority is frivolous. Lonsdale v. United
States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1445-1447 (10th Cir. 1990).
Respondent wrote to petitioner on December 19, 2001, and
warned her that if she continued asserting frivolous arguments,
respondent might seek an award of damages under section 6673.
Respondent also warned petitioner about damages under section
6673 in respondent’s response to petitioner’s request for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011