- 12 - correct and requesting that we specifically address the “Delpit”, “Scar”, and “Agency” issues. In our opinion in Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002- 169, we addressed the “Delpit”, “Scar”, and “Agency” issues, demonstrating the frivolity of petitioner’s arguments on these issues. We need not repeat the exercise here. We also concluded that petitioner was not entitled to rely on the misrepresen- tations of the promoter whose abusive trust package petitioner had purchased. We suggested, however, that petitioner had somewhat redeemed himself by conceding the abusive trust issue before the parties’ briefs were due and that we would take petitioner’s belated concession into account in determining sanctions under section 6673(a). In our opinion in Edwards, we found many of the positions taken by petitioner when he instituted this proceeding, and maintained throughout this proceeding, were frivolous and groundless, and that petitioner unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies. Accordingly, we agreed with respondent that petitioner should be penalized under section 6673(a)(1). We also opined that Ms. Spaid would be liable under section 6673(a)(2) for respondent’s costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred because of the frivolous arguments she had advanced. In so holding, we found that Ms. Spaid had knowingly and recklessly made frivolous arguments in pretrial memoranda, at trial, and inPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011