Eugene I. and Leonarda T. Valdez - Page 9




                                        - 8 -                                         

          Commissioner, supra.  On this record, the Court sustains                    
          respondent on the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties for            
          the 3 years at issue.                                                       
               Section 6673(a) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer             
          to pay to the United States a penalty not exceeding $25,000 when,           
          in the Court's judgment, proceedings have been instituted or                
          maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or where the                 
          taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless.           
          Although petitioners conceded the deficiencies and challenged               
          only the penalties under section 6662(a), the Court considers               
          petitioners' claim that they should not be liable for the                   
          penalties to be frivolous and groundless.  Petitioners knew that            
          a substantial portion of the itemized deductions at issue was               
          false and could not be sustained.  Other circumstances noted                
          above need not be repeated here.                                            
               The function of this Court is to provide a forum to decide             
          issues relating to liability for Federal taxes.  At trial,                  
          petitioners realized that they had no case with respect to the              
          deficiencies but chose to continue to challenge the imposition of           
          the penalties under section 6662(a).  Any reasonable and prudent            
          person, under the facts presented to the Court, should have known           
          that the claimed deductions could not be sustained, and                     
          petitioners knew that.  We do not and should not countenance the            
          use of this Court as a vehicle for disgruntled litigants to                 





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011