Donald P. Arnett - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               Petitioner did not act in good faith.  Petitioner relied on            
          frivolous tax-protester arguments in deciding not to file an                
          adequate return.  Petitioner’s reliance on these materials does             
          not constitute reasonable cause for failing to file a return.               
          See Coulton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-199.  Accordingly,             
          we sustain respondent’s determination.                                      
          IV.  Penalty                                                                
               Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a                  
          taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed                
          $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the                     
          proceeding or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay.  A            
          position maintained by the taxpayer 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).  The U.S. Court of           
          Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the court which is the likely                
          venue for appeal of this case, has upheld sanctions against                 
          taxpayers making arguments similar to petitioner’s.  See Casper             
          v. Commissioner, supra at 905; Charczuk v. Commissioner, supra at           
          475.                                                                        
               Petitioner’s protester rhetoric is manifestly frivolous and            
          groundless.  He has caused this Court to waste limited resources            
          by his persistence in advancing views of the tax law which are              
          known to be completely without merit.  Petitioner was duly warned           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011