- 11 -
June 1999 bankruptcy petition; the intentional interposition of
automatic stays to thwart this Court’s orders, Rules, or
commands; and his intentional misrepresentation regarding the
nonexistent bankruptcy proceeding deserve separate rebuke.
In that regard, contempt of court may be civil or criminal,
depending upon the purpose being served. Ryan v. Commissioner,
67 T.C. 212, 222 (1976), affd. 568 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1977).
“[C]ivil contempt is coercive and remedial in character whereas
criminal contempt is punitive to vindicate the authority of the
Court. See, e.g., Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S.
418 (1911); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966).”
Id.
Petitioner’s dilatory tactics were carried out in
disobedience and defiance of this Court’s Rules, orders, or
command. The false documentation and misrepresentations were
acts intended to obstruct the administration of justice.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to impose a criminal sanction
under section 7456 for petitioner’s misbehavior under section
7456, in addition to the $25,000 penalty imposed under section
6673.
Because of the possibility of monetary fine’s being imposed
as a criminal sanction on petitioner, he was provided with an
opportunity to show cause why such a fine should not be imposed.
This was accomplished by the issuance of a Notice and Order to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011