M. Kenneth Creamer - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
               Petitioner’s only remaining arguments constitute challenges            
          to the existence of his underlying tax liabilities.8  However,              
          petitioner received statutory notices of deficiency for 1991                
          through 1998 and 2002.  Petitioner admits receiving a statutory             
          notice of deficiency for 1991 through 1998, and he does not                 
          dispute receiving a statutory notice of deficiency for 2002.                
          Consequently, petitioner is prohibited by section 6330(c)(2)(B)             
          from disputing the existence of the underlying tax liabilities              
          for those years.                                                            
               On this record, we conclude that there is no genuine issue             
          of material fact requiring a trial in this case, and we hold that           
          respondent is entitled to the entry of a decision sustaining the            
          proposed levy as a matter of law.                                           
          III. Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty                                             
               Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a                  
          taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty, not to exceed               
          $25,000, if it appears that the taxpayer instituted or maintained           
          a proceeding primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position            
          is frivolous or groundless.  Section 6673(a)(1) applies to                  
          proceedings under section 6330.  Pierson v. Commissioner, 115               
          T.C. 576, 581 (2000).  In proceedings under section 6330, we have           

               8In addition to the arguments raised in his petition, see              
          supra p. 5, petitioner also asserts in his response to                      
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment that he does not have a            
          deficiency in tax as defined under the Internal Revenue Code and            
          that his wages are not subject to Federal income tax.                       

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

Last modified: November 10, 2007