- 15 -
issue of fact, we declined to adjudicate summarily petitioners’
affirmative defense claims.
By the order we issued in docket No. 146-05L, we also denied
respondent’s motion for a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). We
explained that, because we were only granting partial summary
judgment in that case, we would await further developments before
determining whether a penalty is appropriate. We added that we
would also consider imposing excess costs on counsel pursuant to
section 6673(a)(2) should we conclude that counsel had taken
actions to multiply the proceeding unreasonably and vexatiously.
We likewise warned petitioners and counsel in the orders issued
in the other cases that we were considering the imposition of
penalties and costs. In all of the orders, we stated our
impressions that petitioner, aided by counsel, may have (1)
instituted and maintained the proceeding before this Court
primarily to delay the collection of his income tax liability,
(2) in support of that goal, raised frivolous arguments and
relied on groundless claims, and (3) unreasonably failed to
pursue his opportunity for a section 6330 hearing. We cataloged
our concerns with respect to each petitioner generally as
follows: He had not challenged respondent’s statements in
support of the motion for summary judgment that petitioner
received a notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax
Court; he had failed to present the settlement officer any
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007