Robert Harold Hathaway - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          appropriateness of respondent’s tax lien.  Petitioner failed to             
          take advantage of the opportunity.  Rather, he chose to espouse             
          groundless and frivolous arguments.  Consequently, there is no              
          basis for us to conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for             
          respondent to determine that the filing of a Federal tax lien in            
          the instant situation was appropriate.                                      
               We now turn to whether, pursuant to section 6673, we should            
          require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States, and if            
          so the amount thereof.  Section 6673 provides, in part, that                
          whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it             
          have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for            
          delay or the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous            
          or groundless, the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the              
          taxpayer to pay the United States a penalty not in excess of                
          $25,000.  Petitioner’s position in this case is frivolous as well           
          as groundless.  Although petitioner was informed that his                   
          position has been rejected consistently by the courts, he                   
          nonetheless continued to advance it.                                        
               We have no doubt that petitioner, an educated individual,              
          maintained this proceeding primarily to delay the day the IRS               
          could collect taxes he owes for 1996 and 1997.  Petitioner has              
          wasted the time of respondent’s agents and counsel as well as the           
          time of this Court.  We therefore impose a penalty of $10,000 on            
          petitioner under section 6673.                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011