Charles and Teresa Brodman - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
                    the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the                   
                    taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not                
                    in excess of $25,000.                                             
          Section 6673 is a penalty provision, intended to deter and                  
          penalize frivolous claims and petitions.  Cf. Bagby v.                      
          Commissioner, 102 T.C. 596, 613-614 (1994).  The purpose “is to             
          compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled           
          principles before they file returns and litigate.”  Takaba v.               
          Commissioner, supra at 295.                                                 
               In this case, respondent did not move for summary judgment             
          or for a penalty, and the case was submitted fully stipulated.              
          Petitioners were specifically warned here, and taxpayers (and               
          their counsel) were warned in Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.             
          576, 581 (2000), and by the numerous subsequent cases, of the               
          likelihood of a penalty under section 6673 if they abused the               
          protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330.                             
               Petitioners in this case should be treated the same as                 
          taxpayers similarly situated.  They should not be treated the               
          same as taxpayers who abandon frivolous arguments before trial.             
          The Court takes judicial notice that, in three other cases on the           
          Cleveland calendar in which Mr. Jewett represented the taxpayers            
          in presenting frivolous claims in the petition, the taxpayers did           
          not pursue those claims at the time of trial.  In two of those              
          cases, disposition was prior to trial by agreement of the                   
          parties.  In a third case, mentioned above, Mr. Jewett was                  






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011