- 31 -
raised frivolous arguments and relied on groundless positions.
Although we decline to impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty on the
other petitioners, given the almost cookie-cutter similarity of
the claims made by each of them, we could (and do) make the same
finding and reach the same conclusion with respect to each of
them. None of the petitioners presents any meritorious claims.
Moreover, we have no doubt that Mr. Jones has known all along
that petitioners’ claims lack merit. We have no doubt because of
Mr. Jones’s candor in responding to the orders to show cause. In
those responses, Mr. Jones admits that, while, on average, the
cases he brings have merit, some do not:
The Orders to Show cannot be properly answered in
the context of analysis of individual issues raised on
appeal from CDP [sec. 6330] hearings. This is true
because there are some “L” [sec. 6330] case docket
numbers which standing alone do not have appealable
issue[s]. However, in conjunction with other related
“L” case docket numbers, and sometimes statutory notice
of deficiency docket numbers[, they] have sufficient
appealable issues, and “hazards of litigation” which
justify settlement of all docket numbers before the
Court[,] as agreed upon by petitioners, their counsel,
and the IRS Office of Chief Counsel acting on behalf of
respondent.
The five amended petitions before us today raise substantially
the same issues. If Mr. Jones believed that those issues were
“appealable issues”, by which term we assume that he means
meritorious issues, then there would be no reason for him to make
his probabilistic argument; i.e., while some of my cases have no
merit, some do, so that, on average, all of my cases have merit,
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007