Jan Lister - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          petitioner’s filings were confused, often unintelligible, and               
          sometimes reminiscent of protester rhetoric, not all of the                 
          arguments contained in those filings were frivolous or groundless           
          on their face.  Petitioner’s principal claim was that she is                
          impoverished.  In fact, she may well be.  Unfortunately,                    
          petitioner did nothing to prove her financial condition at the              
          section 6330 hearing before the Appeals Office.  Although we have           
          no record before us to review for abuse of discretion, that same            
          lack of a record forecloses any conclusion we might otherwise               
          have reached that petitioner’s claim of poverty was either                  
          frivolous or groundless.3  Consequently, we shall deny that part            
          of respondent’s motion that seeks a penalty under section 6673.             
          We warn petitioner, however, that most of her arguments in this             
          case were, to the extent that we understood them, of the type               
          that might justify the imposition of a section 6673 penalty if              
          petitioner were to assert those arguments again in another                  
          judicial proceeding in this Court.                                          
               We hold that the material facts are not in dispute and that            
          respondent is entitled to a summary adjudication as a matter of             
          law.  We further hold that respondent correctly determined that             

               3We also note that the administrative record contains no               
          indication that respondent warned petitioner that her arguments             
          were frivolous or groundless or that her arguments might result             
          in the imposition of a sec. 6673 penalty.                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011