- 22 -
income he received during 2003. Instead, petitioner chose to
appear at trial, where he presented no evidence and argued that
the notice of deficiency was not statutory or valid. Moreover,
this is not the first time that petitioner has wasted the time
and resources of this Court. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2006-109.
While it is true that petitioner has prevailed with respect
to two of the additions to tax, his success is not attributable
to any meaningful effort on his part. Rather, his limited
success in this case is the result of respondent’s failure to
satisfy his burden of production under section 7491(c) regarding
the section 6651(a)(2) and section 6654 additions to tax. With
the exception of petitioner’s allegation that he was not liable
for the additions to tax, petitioner’s assignments of error in
the petition, his arguments in his pretrial memorandum,16 and his
argument at trial were either unintelligible or meritless.
Moreover, petitioner did not abandon his frivolous arguments
despite repeated warnings. At trial, petitioner, while
courteous, did not testify regarding any disputed factual
matters, and he persisted in arguing that the notice of
deficiency was not valid.
16 Petitioner’s pretrial memorandum was filled with
unintelligible and/or frivolous arguments reminiscent of tax-
protester rhetoric.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011