Paul L. Bowman - Page 18
- 18 -
not properly placed at issue, the Court will review the determi-
nation of the Commissioner for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material
fact regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
determining to proceed with the collection action as determined
in the notice of determination with respect to petitioner’s
taxable years 2001 and 2002.
Although respondent does not ask the Court to impose a
penalty on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), we consider sua
sponte whether the Court should impose a penalty on petitioner
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 a taxpayer
instituted or maintained a proceeding in the Court primarily for
delay or that a taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is
frivolous or groundless.
We believe that petitioner instituted and maintained the
instant proceeding primarily for delay. We shall not impose a
penalty under section 6673(a)(1) on petitioner. However, we
caution him that he may be subject to such a penalty if in the
Page: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: November 10, 2007