- 26 -
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we hold that we shall sustain respondent’s respective determina-
tions over which we have jurisdiction21 in the 1995 through 1997
notice of determination and the 1998 notice of determination.
Although respondent does not ask us to impose a penalty on
Ms. Latos under section 6673(a)(1), we consider sua sponte
whether we should impose a penalty on her under that section.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to
pay a penalty to the United States in an amount not to exceed
$25,000 whenever it appears that the taxpayer instituted or
maintained a proceeding in the Court primarily for delay or that
the taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous or
groundless.
As discussed above, Ms. Latos advances in the instant cases
essentially the same arguments with respect to each of her
taxable years 1995 through 1998 that she and Mr. Anderson ad-
vanced with respect to their taxable years 1995 through 1997 in
Anderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-112. With respect to
her taxable year 1995 at issue here, in Anderson v. Commissioner,
supra, the Court held that Ms. Latos and Mr. Anderson were
precluded under section 6330(c)(2)(B) from challenging the
20(...continued)
[taxpayer] as an employee.’” Id. (citation omitted).
21See supra note 13.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007