- 9 -
respect to the notice of determination, 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 groundless.
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 with respect to
petitioner’s unpaid liability for 1998 except for the addition to
tax under section 6651(a)(2) assessed for that year,7 as deter-
mined in the notice of determination.
In respondent’s motion, respondent requests that the Court
require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant
to section 6673(a)(1). 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 main-
tained primarily for delay, sec. 6673(a)(1)(A), or that the
taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous or ground-
less, 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-
7In the notice of determination, the Appeals Office deter-
mined that the assessment of the addition to tax under sec.
6651(a)(2) for petitioner’s taxable year 1998 was improper and
that respondent may not proceed with the proposed collection
action with respect to that addition to tax.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011