Nathaniel Caleb Avery - Page 17

                                        -17-                                          
          should have known that his arguments lacked merit.  Petitioner              
          cited the Internal Revenue Code, the Tax Court Rules, the                   
          Constitution, and dozens of cases.  We have no doubt that                   
          petitioner was or had reason to be thoroughly familiar with the             
          precedent which uniformly denied validity to his position.                  
          Petitioner’s failure to provide respondent with information                 
          requested and petitioner’s failure to offer competent evidence at           
          trial pertaining to substantive issues raised in the notice of              
          deficiency are further evidence that this lawsuit was instituted            
          primarily for delay.  See Stamos v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 624,              
          638 (1990), affd. without published opinion 956 F.2d 1168 (9th              
          Cir. 1992).                                                                 
               On the record before us, we are convinced that petitioner              
          has instituted and maintained this proceeding primarily for delay           
          and has advanced frivolous and groundless arguments.  In the                
          light of the foregoing, we believe sanctions are necessary to               
          deter petitioner and other similarly situated taxpayers from                
          comparable dilatory conduct.  Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we            
          impose against petitioner a penalty of $5,000.                              
               We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions and                 
          allegations that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be           
          without merit and/or irrelevant.  To reflect the foregoing,                 
                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             for respondent.                          






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011