Lyndon D. Sinele - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          tax required to be shown on the 2000 return or $5,000.                      
          Accordingly, respondent has met his burden of production.                   
               Petitioner did not present any evidence indicating                     
          reasonable cause or substantial authority.  Secs. 6662, 6664.               
          Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s penalty determination.                 
          III. Section 6673 Penalty                                                   
               Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a                  
          taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed                
          $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the                     
          proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay.              
               It is clear to the Court that petitioner has instituted and            
          maintained this proceeding primarily for delay.  The Court                  
          granted several requests to extend the time for petitioner to               
          perform certain actions including the time to file an amended               
          petition and two motions to extend time to file opening brief.              
          Notably, petitioner never filed any briefs.                                 
               Additionally, petitioner refused to meet with respondent in            
          advance of trial to prepare his case for trial.  He designated              
          Boston, Massachusetts, as the place of trial even though he lived           
          in Missouri, and he did not appear at trial.  He presented a new            
          theory of the case at calendar call (petitioner denied receiving            
          money from Dynamex or attaching a Form 1099 to his 2000 return),            
          and made respondent obtain new evidence on the eve of trial to              
          rebut the new theory.  We believe this new theory was contrived             






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011