Nathaniel Caleb Avery - Page 16

                                        -16-                                          
          5.  Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty                                              
               The Court now considers sua sponte whether to impose a                 
          penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).  That            
          section provides that the Court may require a taxpayer to pay to            
          the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever,              
          among other reasons, it appears either that the taxpayer                    
          instituted or maintained the proceeding primarily for delay or              
          that the taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is frivolous or              
          groundless.                                                                 
               The record in this case convinces us that petitioner was not           
          interested in disputing the merits of either the deficiency                 
          in income tax or the additions to tax respondent determined in              
          the notice of deficiency.  Rather, the record demonstrates that             
          petitioner unreasonably prolonged the proceeding by serving on              
          respondent and filing with the Court repetitious, groundless, and           
          frivolous documents.  In the petition, motion for summary                   
          judgment, and several other documents petitioner has submitted to           
          the Court, petitioner raised frivolous tax-protester arguments              
          and contentions that have previously and universally been                   
          rejected as such.  See, e.g., Dashiell v. Commissioner, T.C.                
          Memo. 2004-210 (as to petitioner’s allegation that no Internal              
          Revenue Code section makes him liable); Smith v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 2003-45 (as to petitioner’s allegation that the                  
          deficiency determined is an excise tax).  Petitioner knew or                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011