- 10 -
Petitioner also contends that respondent’s assessments are
invalid. Petitioner did not show, or even allege, that there was
any irregularity in the assessment procedure that would raise a
question about the validity of the assessments. Respondent noted
verification in the notice of determination that all requirements
of applicable law and administrative procedure had been met and
that respondent had properly balanced the need for efficient
collection against any legitimate concerns of intrusiveness
raised by petitioner. Petitioner has not presented any evidence
or persuasive arguments that respondent erred or abused his
discretion but instead has raised frivolous and groundless
arguments. Hence, the Court concludes that respondent’s
determination to proceed with collection of petitioner’s tax
liabilities was not in error or an abuse of discretion, and
respondent may proceed with the proposed collection.
II. Section 6673 Penalty
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to impose a
penalty not in excess of $25,000 on a taxpayer for proceedings
instituted primarily for delay or in which the taxpayer’s
position is frivolous or groundless. “A petition to the Tax
Court, or a tax return, is frivolous if 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011