- 6 -
Before the calendar call, Mr. Jewett had been advised by the
Court in a conference call with respondent’s counsel, in an
essentially identical case, that the arguments presented were
frivolous and that petitioners could have penalties imposed
against them under section 6673.
At the call of the calendar, Mr. Jewett acknowledged the
Court’s warning to him. Mr. Jewett also confirmed that he had
informed petitioners of the possibility that penalties could be
imposed against them. Petitioners authorized Mr. Jewett to
proceed with the same arguments in spite of the warning.
Discussion
During the trial session held in Cleveland, Ohio, beginning
June 2, 2003, four cases, including the instant case, were
submitted on the basis of fully stipulated facts.2 Mr. Jewett
represented the taxpayers in each of the four cases.
Brodman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-230, was the first
of the four cases to be decided. We held in Brodman that no bona
fide issues were raised, no alternatives to collection were
proposed, and the arguments presented were frivolous. No abuse
of discretion was found, collection was allowed to proceed, and a
2 James Benson and Melanie A. Dunham, docket No. 7029-02L;
Gregory R. Brown, docket No. 8368-02L; Harold V. and Imogene N.
Pahl, docket No. 11572-02L; Charles and Teresa Brodman, docket
No. 16598-02L.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011