- 5 -
himself provided. It is therefore the Court’s responsibility to
apply the law to the undisputed facts in order to ascertain
petitioner’s correct tax liability. Penn-Field Indus., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 720, 722 (1980). We have done so and, as
discussed above, have concluded that respondent’s determination
is correct under the law.
Section 6673(a)(1) gives this Court the discretion to
require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in
excess of $25,000 where it appears that proceedings before the
Court have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
primarily for delay, or that the taxpayer’s position is frivolous
or groundless. Petitioner has advanced only frivolous arguments
and groundless assertions in this case. Furthermore, this is the
second case petitioner has brought in this Court concerning the
application of the AMT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
In Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-196, we upheld
respondent’s determination that petitioner was liable for the AMT
in a situation nearly identical to the present case. Petitioner
has made no attempt to distinguish the two cases. After the
trial of the present case, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the decision of this Court in petitioner’s prior
case, stating:
We further conclude that Moore’s arguments relating to
discovery and recusal of the tax court judge are without
merit. First, the determination of whether Moore is liable
for payment of an AMT is a legal question that is not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011