- 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 in
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011