- 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