- 7 -
denied the motion for summary judgment but warned petitioner as
follows:
At the same time, the Court cautions petitioner
that some, but not all, of the various issues advanced
by petitioner during the administrative process have
been repeatedly rejected by this and other courts or
are refuted by the documentary record. Moreover,
maintenance of similar frivolous arguments has served
as grounds for imposition of penalties under section
6673. We admonish petitioner that if he persists in
making frivolous and groundless tax protester arguments
in any further proceedings with respect to this case,
rather than raising relevant issues, as specified in
section 6330(c)(2), the Court would be in a position to
impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). * * *
Several days later, on October 8, 2004, the Court received
from petitioner his response to respondent’s motion. Therein,
petitioner principally reiterated his position that, on account
of the refusal to permit recording of the collection hearing, the
underlying notice of determination should be vacated and his case
remanded. He asked that the Court deny respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. The response was filed for the record, and the
case proceeded to trial.
6(...continued)
the underlying notices of deficiency and did not include copies
of the notices themselves. For instance, the notice of
determination stated at one point that the notices of deficiency
were issued on Jan. 10, 2001, and at another point gave a date of
mailing of Oct. 12, 2000. As later became clear at trial,
certain of the references were inadvertently made to the “Last
Day to File a Petition With the United States Tax Court” date
stamped on the front of the notices of deficiency, rather than
the issuance date, also stamped on the front.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011