Chester E. Davis - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          protester arguments, he presented nothing more than an income tax           
          return with a zero in each pertinent box.  Accordingly,                     
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be granted, and               
          petitioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment will be denied.              
          Section 6673 Penalty                                                        
               Respondent has requested that the Court impose a penalty               
          under section 6673 on the ground that the arguments advanced by             
          petitioner to respondent and the Court are frivolous.  Section              
          6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty not in excess           
          of $25,000 when it appears to the Court that, inter alia,                   
          proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer              
          primarily for delay or that the position of the taxpayer 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 taxpayers 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.  See, e.g.,                
          Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 264-265 (2002) (and cases              
          cited therein).                                                             
               Petitioner’s arguments in this case are frivolous and                  
          without substance.  He has taken numerous unrelated legal                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007