-7-
taxes, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed petitioner’s and his
wife’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.2 The court noted that the arguments made
by petitioner and his wife in support of their amended complaint,
arguments which are similar to the arguments made by petitioner
here, are “commonly made by tax protestors such as plaintiffs * *
* [and] have been rejected, flatly and uniformly, by other
courts, and are rejected by this court as well.” Id. Fourth, in
a letter that Appeals sent to petitioner in connection with his
request for a section 6330 hearing as to the subject year, among
other years, Appeals informed petitioner that the arguments which
he made in his request were frivolous or groundless. Those
arguments were similar to the arguments which petitioner makes
here.
Petitioner’s insistence in this proceeding on pursuing his
fruitless arguments has consumed the valuable time and effort of
this Court (and of respondent) that could have otherwise been
devoted to resolving bona fide claims of other taxpayers. See
Cook v. Spillman, 806 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1986). Petitioner was
specifically warned by the Court of the likelihood of a penalty
under section 6673 if he persisted in his frivolous arguments,
2 Respondent in his motion alleges that petitioner has
another case pending before the Court of Federal Claims regarding
a tax refund for 2000. Petitioner in his response does not deny
either of these assertions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011