- 19 -
judgment as a matter of law. In respondent’s response to
petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, respondent cited Schiff
v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1990), Roat v.
Commissioner, 847 F.2d at 1381, and Hartman v. Commissioner, 65
T.C. 542 (1975). We denied petitioner’s motion for summary
judgment. Thus, petitioner had knowledge of well-established
authority that section 6211(a) does not require the Commissioner
to prepare a substitute for return before determining a
deficiency and issuing a notice. Petitioner, however, persisted
in his frivolous and groundless arguments through trial and his
answering brief, which consists mainly of hackneyed tax protester
rhetoric and rambling legalistic gibberish.
Petitioner unreasonably prolonged the proceedings by serving
on respondent and filing with the Court repetitious, groundless,
and frivolous documents. Petitioner was not interested in
disputing the merits of the deficiencies or the additions to tax.
Sua sponte, the Court holds that petitioner must pay a penalty
under section 6673(a)(1) for instituting these proceedings
primarily for delay and for taking groundless positions. See
Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 580 (2000); Jensen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-120; Frey v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-87; Frank v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-88;
Robinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-77.
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