David H. Saxon - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          applicable in the respective amounts set forth in the notice of             
          deficiency.                                                                 
               Respondent requests that this Court impose a penalty                   
          pursuant to section 6673 because petitioner has instituted this             
          proceeding primarily for delay.  Respondent contends that                   
          petitioner’s position is groundless and/or frivolous, and that              
          petitioner filed his petition as a protest to paying income                 
          taxes.                                                                      
               Section 6673(a)(1) provides that this Court may require a              
          taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of             
          $25,000 whenever it appears that:  (1) The taxpayer instituted or           
          maintained the proceedings primarily for delay; (2) the                     
          taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless;           
          or (3) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available                 
          administrative remedies.                                                    
               We have previously imposed a penalty pursuant to section               
          6673(a)(1) against petitioner for asserting arguments similar to            
          those advanced herein.  In docket No. 16369-05L, petitioner                 
          raised similar frivolous arguments with respect to collection of            
          his income tax liabilities for 2000, 2001, and 2002, and                    
          respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim           
          upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under              
          section 6673.  On December 23, 2005, this Court entered an order            
          of dismissal and decision in docket No. 16369-05L that respondent           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011