- 12 -
response) is frivolous and/or groundless.9
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 liability for 1999.
In respondent’s motion, 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 instituted or main-
tained primarily for delay, sec. 6673(a)(1)(A), or that the
taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous or ground-
less, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B).
In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000), we issued
an unequivocal warning to taxpayers concerning the imposition of
a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) on those taxpayers who abuse
the protections afforded by sections 6320 and 6330 by instituting
9The statements, contentions, arguments, and requests set
forth in petitioner’s response are similar to the statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in the respective
responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to
the 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