Daniel G. Callahan, et al. - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          for any year that immediately preceded any of the years at issue,           
          nor did they pay any estimated tax for their years at issue.  We            
          accordingly conclude that respondent has met his burden of                  
          production regarding the section 6654 additions with sufficient             
          evidence to indicate that petitioners had required annual                   
          payments for each of their years at issue.                                  
               We do not find that petitioners are entitled to any of the             
          statutorily provided exceptions to the section 6654 addition to             
          tax or that respondent’s determinations were incorrect.                     
          Accordingly, we sustain the additions under section 6654 for each           
          of petitioners’ years at issue.                                             
          Section 6673 Penalty                                                        
               Respondent has moved for a penalty under section 6673(a)(1).           
          Whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings have been                 
          instituted or maintained primarily for delay or the taxpayer’s              
          position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless, the                
          Court may require the taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of            
          $25,000.  Sec. 6673(a)(1).                                                  
               Petitioners presented no substantive evidence in support of            
          their positions.  Instead, they advanced numerous frivolous tax-            
          protester arguments, such as claiming that labor is property that           
          gives rise to an “even” exchange when it is traded for money and            
          that income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.                    
          Petitioners were warned at trial that their arguments were                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007