- 20 -
Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment privilege does not prevent us
from imposing the penalty. See, e.g., Cabirac v. Commissioner,
120 T.C. 163 (2003); Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-105; Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-169; Wheelis
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102. We do not impose sanctions
on petitioner for refusing to testify, but rather for instituting
and maintaining these proceedings primarily for delay and
persisting in advancing arguments that are frivolous.
The Court’s time and resources have been wasted. Petitioner
was specifically warned by the Court of the likelihood of a
penalty under section 6673 if he persisted in his frivolous
arguments, and he has persisted. Petitioner could have avoided
the penalty we now award to the United States, and other people
should avoid it, by even the most minimal concern for settled
rules. Serious sanctions are necessary to deter petitioner and
others similarly situated; the penalty must be substantial for it
to have a deterrent effect. See Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
285, 295 (2002) (citing Coleman v. Commissioner, supra at 71).
Consequently, a penalty under section 6673 will be awarded to the
United States in the amount of $15,000.
The amounts of the deficiencies resulting from the corrected
amounts of petitioner’s business income as conceded by respondent
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