- 10 -
file a tax return and, consequently, did not elect to itemize
deductions), affd. per curiam __ Fed. Appx. ___ (3d Cir., July
21, 2005); Andreas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-551 (section
63 and the relevant regulations do not authorize the election to
itemize deductions unless a return is filed).
Section 6673 Penalty
We now address whether to impose a penalty against
petitioner pursuant to section 6673, which authorizes the Tax
Court to impose a penalty up to $25,000 on a taxpayer if the
Court finds, among other things, that the taxpayer instituted or
maintained proceedings primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s
position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless. A
taxpayer’s position is frivolous if it is contrary to established
law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change
in the law. See Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th
Cir. 1986); see also Hansen v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1464, 1470
(9th Cir. 1987); Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523,
544 (2000).
Petitioner does not here argue for any change in the law.
Instead, petitioner argues that the tax laws do not apply to him.
Petitioner’s arguments are frivolous. Petitioner deserves a
penalty under section 6673(a)(1), and that penalty should be
substantial, if it is to have the desired deterrent effect. Cf.
Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, affd. without
published opinion 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996). The purpose of
section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011