- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011