- 11 - Although respondent does not ask the Court to impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), the Court will sua sponte determine whether to impose such a penalty. Neither petitioner nor any authorized representative of petitioner appeared on October 7, 2002, at the calendar call or at the trial in this case. Nor did petitioner or any authorized representa- tive of petitioner appear at the hearing on October 9, 2002, on respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. More- over, in the Court’s September 5, 2002 Order, the Court indicated that petitioner’s September 4, 2002 motion to dismiss contained various statements, arguments, and contentions that the Court found to be frivolous and/or groundless. In that Order, the Court also indicated it would be inclined to impose a penalty on petitioner under that section not in excess of $25,000 in the event she continued to make frivolous and/or groundless state- ments, contentions, and/or arguments. Petitioner nonetheless persisted in petitioner’s October 10, 2002 motion to dismiss in advancing various statements, arguments, contentions, and ques- tions that the Court found to be frivolous and/or groundless. On the record before us, we find that petitioner instituted and maintained this case primarily for delay. We further find on that record that petitioner’s position in this case is frivolous 9(...continued) 1998.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011