George A. Robinson - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
             Based upon our examination of the entire 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 liability for each of his taxable years 1987, 1988, 1989,            
          1993, 1994, and 1995.                                                       
             Although respondent does not ask the Court to impose a pen-              
          alty 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) on those taxpayers who              
          abuse the protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330 by                 
          instituting or maintaining actions under those sections primarily           
          for delay or by taking frivolous or groundless positions in such            
          actions.7                                                                   


               7In an Order dated Jan. 10, 2003, in response to respon-               
          dent’s motion for protective order, the Court reminded petitioner           
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011