Marc A. Clampitt - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          these arguments possess some degree of colorable merit.  See                
          Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).                 
          Petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the correctness of              
          his tax liability for 1998 but instead chose not to do so.                  
          Therefore petitioner’s underlying tax liability for 1998 was not            
          properly in issue.  Accordingly, we hold that no genuine issue of           
          material fact exists requiring trial and that respondent is                 
          entitled to summary judgment.  Respondent’s determination to                
          proceed with the proposed levy to collect petitioner’s tax                  
          liability for 1998 was not an abuse of discretion.                          
               Section 6673(a)(1) provides that this Court may require the            
          taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it              
          appears to this Court:  (a) The proceedings were instituted or              
          maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay; (b) the                     
          taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless; (c) or the                  
          taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative             
          remedies.  Respondent has moved that the Court impose a penalty             
          in the instant case.  The record indicates that petitioner                  
          received several warnings that this Court could impose a penalty            
          if he persisted in raising his frivolous tax protester arguments.           
          Despite being warned, petitioner raised his frivolous arguments             
          throughout the section 6330 administrative process, in his                  
          petition to this Court, and in his response to respondent’s                 







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

Last modified: May 25, 2011