- 8 -
respondent’s counsel and by this Court.4 In sum, respondent may
proceed with the sustained levy.
3. Section 6673 Penalty
Taxpayers invoking frivolous and groundless claims and
instituting proceedings under section 6330(d) for the purpose of
delay are subject to penalties. Sec. 6673(a)(1). A position is
frivolous where it is “contrary to established law and
unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the
law.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986);
Gilligan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-194. We have imposed
section 6673 penalties in levy review cases where the taxpayer
has raised irrelevant and frivolous arguments as to the validity
of the Federal income tax system. See Hamzik v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2004-223; Gilligan v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner
is hereby warned. Should he insist on further asserting
frivolous and irrelevant arguments, or instituting court
proceedings for the purpose of delaying collection, penalties
will be imposed.
4 We also note that assuming that the Appeals officer did
err in refusing to meet with petitioner in a face-to-face
hearing, according to the rule of prejudicial error (or the
doctrine of harmless error), as applied to an administrative
action, the reviewing court shall disregard procedural errors
unless the complaining party was prejudiced thereby. Keene v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 21 (2003) (Halpern, J., concurring).
Petitioner has not presented any evidence that he was so
prejudiced by the Appeals officer’s refusal to hear frivolous and
irrelevant arguments in person.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011