- 7 -
in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. In Pierson v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000), we issued a warning
concerning the imposition of a penalty under section 6673(a)(1)
on those petitioners abusing the protections afforded by sections
6320 and 6330 through the bringing of dilatory or frivolous lien
or levy actions. The Court has since repeatedly disposed of
cases premised on arguments akin to those raised herein summarily
and with imposition of the section 6673 penalty.3 See, e.g.,
Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 264-265 (and cases cited
therein).
Respondent has not sought a section 6673 penalty in the
instant case; however, the Court considers this issue sua sponte.
Petitioner was warned by respondent that his arguments were
frivolous. Petitioner referred to the penalty in his response to
respondent’s motion for summary judgment.4 Petitioner clearly is
aware of section 6673, yet raised frivolous arguments during the
3We note that on Dec. 20, 2006, Congress enacted the Tax
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-432, div. A, sec.
407, 120 Stat. 2960, which, through amendments to secs. 6702 and
6330, instructs the Secretary to prescribe a list of positions
identified as frivolous. A request for a sec. 6330 hearing based
on any such position may then be disregarded and is not subject
to further administrative or judicial review. The new provisions
are effective only for issues raised after the Secretary
prescribes the list of frivolous positions.
4The closing line of petitioner’s response reads:
“Petitioner asks this Court to deny Respondent’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, abate the additions to tax determined by
Respondent and refuse any penalty at 26 U.S.C. [section] 6673.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011