- 14 -
We turn next to the remaining issues that petitioner raised
with respect to his unpaid liabilities for 1995 and 1996 at his
Appeals Office hearing, in his petition, and in petitioner’s
trial memorandum, which we shall review for abuse of discretion.
Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, supra. We
find all those remaining issues to be frivolous and/or ground-
less. On the record before us, we find that respondent did not
abuse respondent’s discretion in determining to proceed with the
collection action as determined in the notice of determination
with respect to petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for 1995 and
1996.
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. Section
6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to
the United States a penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000
whenever it appears to the Court, inter alia, that a proceeding
before it was instituted or maintained primarily for delay, sec.
6673(a)(1)(A), or that the taxpayer’s position in such a proceed-
ing is frivolous or groundless, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B).
In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000), we
issued an unequivocal warning to taxpayers concerning the imposi-
tion of a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) on those taxpayers who
abuse the protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330 by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011