Laura K. Davis, et al. - Page 31

                                       - 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                
          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