Charles A. Schneller - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          raise any spousal defenses.  Petitioner’s only argument relating            
          to respondent’s collection actions is that respondent abused his            
          discretion in relying on the Form 4340, Certificates of                     
          Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, to verify the           
          assessment, an argument we have previously rejected.  Davis v.              
          Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 40 (2000).2  Petitioner has not                  
          presented any evidence or arguments to convince us that                     
          respondent abused his discretion.  As a result, we hold                     
          respondent’s determination was not an abuse of discretion, and              
          respondent may proceed with the proposed collection actions.  See           
          Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 612.                                         
               Respondent has asked the Court to impose a penalty under               
          section 6673(a).  Although petitioner has presented frivolous               
          arguments, we find that petitioner’s cooperation in the                     
          stipulation process mitigated the delay, and therefore we choose            
          not to impose the penalty at this time.  However, petitioner is             
          warned that we may do so in the future if he continues to assert            
          such frivolous claims before this Court.                                    
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              
                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             for respondent.                          



               2Petitioner stated this argument in his Motion For                     
          Production of Summary Record of Assessment, which this Court                
          denied on Apr. 18, 2006.                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  

Last modified: May 25, 2011