- 12 -
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
As was true of petitioner’s March 10, 2004 letter, peti-
tioner’s attachment to the petition, petitioner’s November 11,
2004 affidavit, petitioner’s March 2005 affidavit, and peti-
tioner’s motion to dismiss, petitioner’s position in petitioner’s
response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment (peti-
tioner’s response) and petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s
response is frivolous and/or groundless.5
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
determining to proceed with the collection action as determined
in the notice of determination with respect to petitioner’s
unpaid liabilities for 1997, 1998, and 1999.
In respondent’s motion for a penalty, respondent requests
that the Court require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United
States pursuant to section 6673(a)(1). Section 6673(a)(1)
authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United
States a penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it
appears to the Court, inter alia, that a proceeding before it was
5The statements, contentions, arguments, and requests set
forth in petitioner’s response are similar to the statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by
certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for
summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See,
e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011