- 5 -
he advanced frivolous and/or groundless contentions and arguments
at trial, the Court would impose a penalty on him under section
6673(a)(1). The Court also advised petitioner at the calendar
call that, in the event he advanced such types of contentions and
arguments at trial, as opposed to presenting facts that are
relevant to resolving the issues remaining in the instant case,
the Court would probably not allow him to testify about such
frivolous and/or groundless contentions and arguments.
On March 24, 2003, this case was called for trial. Peti-
tioner was the only witness. The following colloquy took place
between the Court and petitioner during petitioner’s testimony:
THE COURT: * * * Mr. Hilvety, you may now testify
to any facts that are relevant to resolving the deter-
minations in the notice of deficiency that remain at
issue in this case.
THE WITNESS: Well, the fact is that the notice of
deficiency is deficient on its face because it has no
section listed for the deficiency.
THE COURT: That’s a legal argument. I want any
facts that you want to testify to that * * * [are]
relevant to resolving the issues that remain in this
case.
THE WITNESS: Well, the Internal Revenue Service
is required to state what the tax is derived from under
section 62--
THE COURT: That’s an argument, and it’s a frivo-
lous argument, and I told you this morning and I’ll
tell you now. I’ll give you one more chance, and
unless you’re going to start testifying to facts that
are relevant to resolving the issues in this case as
opposed to making frivolous and/or groundless conten-
tions and arguments, you will be excused from testify-
ing altogether, and I will entertain a motion to dis-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011