James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos - Page 28




                                       - 28 -                                         
          caution her that she may be subject to such a penalty if in the             
          future she institutes or maintains a proceeding in the Court                
          primarily for delay and/or her position in any such proceeding is           
          frivolous or groundless.  See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.               
          403, 409-413 (1984); White v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1126, 1135-             
          1136 (1979).                                                                
               We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of             
          Ms. Latos that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be             
          without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.                                     
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                             Decision will be entered for             
                                        respondent in the case at docket              
                                        No. 16522-02L and an appropriate              
                                        decision will be entered for                  
                                        respondent in the case at docket              
                                        No. 5829-06L.                                 



















Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28

Last modified: November 10, 2007