- 18 -
petitioners have a duty to comply with the tax laws and may not
withhold the information reasonably requested by respondent or
fail to file tax returns.
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that it would not
have been productive for respondent to schedule a face-to-face
hearing. Accordingly, we hold that it was not an abuse of
discretion for respondent to determine to proceed with the
proposed levy to collect petitioners’ 1989 tax liability, and no
genuine issue of material fact exists requiring trial. We shall
therefore grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny
petitioners’ motion for summary judgment. We have considered all
of petitioners’ arguments, and, to the extent that we have not
addressed them in this opinion, we conclude they are without
merit or unnecessary to reach.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a
taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of
$25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted
or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the
taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or
groundless. Although we do not impose a penalty on petitioners
in this case, we take this opportunity to admonish petitioners
that the Court will consider imposing such a penalty should they
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011