Robert B. Keenan - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          III.  Section 6673 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 it appears that the taxpayer has instituted or                  
          maintained a proceeding primarily for delay or that the                     
          taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless.  Section                    
          6673(a)(1) applies to proceedings under section 6330.  Pierson v.           
          Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000).  In proceedings under               
          section 6330, we have imposed the penalty on taxpayers who have             
          raised frivolous and groundless arguments with respect to the               
          legality of the Federal tax laws.  See, e.g., Roberts v.                    
          Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365, 372-373 (2002), affd. 329 F.3d 1224             
          (11th Cir. 2003); Eiselstein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-22;           
          Yacksyzn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-99.                               
               In this case, the record clearly establishes that the only             
          arguments made by petitioner during the administrative processing           
          of this case were frivolous and/or groundless.  Petitioner’s                
          conduct as summarized in this opinion demonstrates that the                 
          section 6330 proceeding was instituted primarily for delay and as           
          a means to challenge the legitimacy of the Federal income tax               
          system.  His conduct merits a substantial penalty.                          
               In setting the amount of the penalty, we consider                      
          petitioner’s conduct in this case, his extended history of                  
          noncompliance with Federal tax law, his history of pursuing                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011