- 14 -
continued making frivolous arguments. As noted above, in July of
2005, respondent’s counsel provided petitioner with a copy of
respondent’s publication entitled “The Truth About Frivolous Tax
Arguments” and directed petitioner to the publication’s
discussion of penalties that may be imposed on taxpayers who take
frivolous positions. Respondent also provided petitioner with a
copy of Hodges v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-168, in which the
Tax Court imposed a penalty on the taxpayer pursuant to section
6673. Additionally, in a letter to petitioner dated August 25,
2005, respondent’s counsel informed petitioner that respondent
would request that the Court impose a section 6673 penalty if
petitioner persisted in raising frivolous arguments. As noted
above, respondent filed a motion for a section 6673 penalty at
trial.
Moreover, the record demonstrates that petitioner instituted
proceedings before this Court primarily for delay. Petitioner
initially designated Kansas City as the place of trial despite
his residence in South Carolina throughout the proceedings.
Petitioner refused to agree to respondent’s proposed stipulation
of facts, based upon information provided by petitioner, despite
the efforts of respondent’s counsel to accommodate all of
petitioner’s specific complaints.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that petitioner has
intentionally made frivolous arguments in these proceedings and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011