- 10 -
supra at 120-121; Cipolla v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-6;
Weishan v. Commissioner, supra; Lindsey v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive
arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretion.
As a result, we hold the issuance of the notice of determination
was not an abuse of respondent’s discretion and respondent may
proceed with collection.
The Court may sua sponte determine whether to impose a
penalty under section 6673(a) against petitioner. Pierson v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 580 (2000); Jensen v. Commissioner,
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.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a
taxpayer to pay the United States a penalty in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court the taxpayer’s
position in such a proceeding is frivolous or groundless. Sec.
6673(a)(1)(B).
As a pro se litigant, petitioner struggled in making proper
arguments. However, we believe petitioner instituted this action
in good faith. There is no evidence that petitioner has
previously been a litigant in this Court, nor are we persuaded
that petitioner maintained this suit primarily to delay payments
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011