Michael J. Yacksyzn - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
          satisfied the verification requirement of section 6330(c)(1).               
          Cf. Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120-121 (2001).                 
               Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a               
          valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended             
          collection action, or offer alternative means of collection.                
          These issues are now deemed conceded.  Rule 331(b)(4).  In the              
          absence of a justiciable issue for review, we conclude that                 
          petitioner has failed to state a claim for relief, and we shall             
          grant that part of respondent’s motion that moves to dismiss.               
               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 petitioner 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); Watson v.                       
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213 (imposing a penalty in the                
          amount of $1,500).                                                          
               We are convinced petitioner instituted the present                     
          proceeding primarily for delay.  In this regard, it is clear that           






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011