- 30 -
Takaba v. Commissioner, supra. If not, it may be the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See sec. 7482(b)(1)(A). The
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has recently expressed the
standard for awarding costs under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927 as follows:
“[A]n attorney is sanctionable when he intentionally abuses the
judicial process or knowingly disregards the risk that his
actions will needlessly multiply proceedings.” Red Carpet
Studios Div. of Source Advantage, Ltd. v. Sater, supra at 646.
In support of that standard, the Court of Appeals cites United
States v. Wallace, 964 F.2d 1214, 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1992), a case
of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Id. Because we are uncertain of appellate venue, and because we
find that Mr. Jones’s conduct would be culpable under the
standard expressed by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
(and presumably shared by the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit), we shall, for purposes of this case (and
without deciding the standard in this Court), adopt that
standard. See Takaba v. Commissioner, supra at 297-298.
We believe that Mr. Jones intentionally abused the judicial
process by bringing and continuing these cases on behalf of
petitioners knowing their claims to be without merit. In support
of our determination to impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty on
Mr. Davis, we found that he initiated and maintained these
proceedings primarily for delay and, in support of that goal,
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007