Thomas G. Brenner - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
               A review of the record in this case convinces us that                  
          petitioner’s position in this proceeding is both frivolous and              
          groundless and that petitioner maintained and prolonged these               
          proceedings primarily for delay.  In so ruling we take into                 
          account all aspects of petitioner’s conduct in this case.                   
               Petitioner’s initial petition lacks any explanation of the             
          basis of his disagreement with respondent and fails to comply               
          with Rule 31(a), which states that the purpose of the pleadings             
          is to give the parties and the Court fair notice of the matters             
          in controversy and the basis for their respective positions.                
          Petitioner’s amended petition avers no particular facts with                
          respect to respondent’s determination but, for the most part,               
          asserts that the notice of deficiency was invalid because                   
          respondent failed to execute substitutes for returns.  Petitioner           
          appeared to be intelligent and knew, or should have known, that             
          his arguments were contrary to well-established law and thus were           
          frivolous.  Moreover, the Court repeatedly informed petitioner              
          that his claims were frivolous and warned him of possible                   
          sanctions.                                                                  
               Rather than heed the warning of the Court, petitioner                  
          elected to continue to proceed with time-worn tax protester                 
          rhetoric.  He filed his motion for summary judgment claiming that           
          respondent’s failure to file substitutes for returns invalidated            
          the notice of deficiency and, consequently, he was entitled to              






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011