Timothy Nicholls - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          taxpayer takes positions that are frivolous or groundless or has            
          instituted or maintained proceedings primarily for delay.  A                
          taxpayer’s position is frivolous if it is contrary to established           
          law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change            
          in the law.  Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 287 (2002).              
          The inquiry is objective; if a person should have known that his            
          position is groundless, a court may and should impose sanctions.            
          Id.  Furthermore, a taxpayer’s failure to provide the                       
          Commissioner with requested information and his failure to offer            
          evidence at trial pertaining to the substantive issues raised in            
          the notice of deficiency are evidence that a suit in this Court             
          was instituted primarily for delay.  Stamos v. Commissioner, 95             
          T.C. 624, 638 (1990), affd. without published opinion 956 F.2d              
          1168 (9th Cir. 1992).                                                       
               Respondent asks that we impose a penalty on petitioner                 
          pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).  Respondent argues that, by his             
          conduct, it is evident that petitioner instituted and maintained            
          these proceedings for delay, as well as to advance frivolous                
          arguments.  Respondent asks us to consider the following.                   
          Petitioner never substantively addressed the pertinent issues in            
          this case, which relate to the correct determination of tax and             
          various additions to tax for the years in issue.  In                        
          contravention of the Court’s Rules on assigning errors with                 
          specificity, petitioner’s petition and amended petition averred             
          no particular facts with respect to respondent’s numerous                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011