- 2 -
discretion in allowing the collection action to proceed, and (2)
whether frivolous arguments advanced by petitioner warrant the
imposition by the Court of a section 6673(a) penalty. We hold
that respondent did not abuse his discretion and that a penalty
under section 6673 is not warranted at this time.
Background
At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner
resided in Kathleen, Georgia.
In the taxable year 2001, the year at issue, petitioner
earned income of approximately $70,000, mostly consisting of
wages he earned as an over-the-road driver for Frito-Lay North
America (Frito Lay). Petitioner stipulated receiving this
income. Petitioner did not file a Form 1040, U.S. Individual
Income Tax Return, for the taxable year 2001. Nor did petitioner
file Forms 1040 for the taxable years 2002 to 2004 even though
Frito Lay continued to report wages for those years. Respondent
prepared a substitute for return (SFR). The SFR reflected a
taxable income to petitioner of $72,182. On August 4, 2003,
respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner for 2001.
Petitioner thereafter filed a petition with this Court, which was
dismissed on March 29, 2004, because petitioner never perfected
the petition as directed of the Court. In response to a notice
1(...continued)
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011