- 12 -
to strike portions of the petition on the grounds that it
contained immaterial, frivolous, and nonjusticiable arguments and
that it did not contain clear and concise assignments of error or
lettered statements of the facts upon which to base assignments
of error, as required by Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). On August 21,
2003, we granted respondent’s motion to strike.
By letter dated February 5, 2004, respondent advised
petitioner that he considered several of the arguments in the
petition to be immaterial and frivolous and that he would request
that the Court award damages under section 6673 in an amount not
to exceed $25,000 if petitioner persisted, at trial, in advancing
groundless arguments that did not pertain to the amount of tax
due. On February 26, 2004, at the beginning of trial,
respondent’s motion for sanctions under section 6673(a)(1)(B) was
filed. We reserved ruling on the motion and address it in the
opinion that follows.
At trial, we warned petitioner on several occasions that we
would not entertain any arguments at trial or on brief regarding
the source of the Federal taxing authority or the basis for
respondent’s contention that income from the sale of property is
taxable under the laws of the United States. We further
explained to petitioner that personal labor is neither includable
in basis nor deductible as an expense, that any arguments
regarding the tax treatment of personal labor are frivolous,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011