Rainer B. and Sonja D. Wagner - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
          B.  Imposition of a Penalty Under Section 6673                              
               We turn now to that part of respondent’s motion that moves             
          for the imposition of a penalty on petitioners under section                
          6673.                                                                       
               As relevant herein, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax              
          Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty           
          not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings               
          have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for            
          delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is                 
          frivolous or groundless.  The Court has indicated its willingness           
          to impose such penalty in lien and levy cases, Pierson v.                   
          Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 580-581 (2000), and has in fact                 
          imposed a penalty in several such cases, Roberts v. Commissioner,           
          supra (imposing a penalty in the amount of $10,000); Newman v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-135 (imposing a penalty in the                
          amount of $1,000); Yacksyzn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-99             
          (imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,000); Watson v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213 (imposing a penalty in the                
          amount of $1,500); Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87                
          (imposing a penalty in the amount of $4,000).                               
               We are convinced that petitioners instituted the present               
          proceeding primarily for delay.  In this regard, it is clear that           
          petitioners regard this proceeding as nothing but a vehicle to              
          protest the tax laws of this country and to espouse their own               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011