- 16 -
Memo. 2002-140 (imposing a penalty of $1,000); Newman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-135 (imposing a penalty of $1,000);
Yacksyzn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-99 (imposing a penalty
of $1,000); Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213 (imposing
a penalty of $1,500); Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87
(imposing a penalty of $4,000).
We are convinced that petitioner instituted the present
proceeding primarily for delay. We note that, during the
administrative process, the Appeals officer informed petitioner
of the Court’s opinion in Pierson v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner nevertheless continued to press his meritless
arguments. Under the circumstances, it is clear that petitioner
regards this proceeding as nothing but a vehicle to protest the
tax laws of this country and to espouse his own misguided views,
which we regard as frivolous and groundless. In short, having to
deal with this matter wasted the Court’s time, as well as
respondent’s, and taxpayers with genuine controversies may have
been delayed.
Under the circumstances, we shall grant that part of
respondent’s motion that moves for the imposition of a penalty in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011