- 17 -
reflects that petitioner again submitted a frivolous Form 1040,
which was not a valid return. See Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120
T.C. 163, 168-170 (2003). Petitioner’s arguments with respect to
the penalties and additions to tax, i.e., that she was “too busy”
to comply and relied on the unidentified accountant, have no
merit.
Petitioner was fully warned in the letter of July 27, 2006,
on the record at the time for trial, and by our order of
September 11, 2006, of the consequences of her failure to produce
evidence in support of her deductions or otherwise properly to
prosecute these cases. She did not comply with the orders of the
Court. On the existing record, we are satisfied that the
appropriate action under Rules 123 and 149(b) is to make our
order to show cause absolute and to dismiss these cases.
In the Court’s letter dated July 27, 2006, the Court
referred petitioner to the provisions of section 6673(a)(1),
which are:
SEC. 6673(a). Tax Court Proceedings.--
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for
delay, etc.–-Whenever it appears to the Tax Court
that--
(A) proceedings before it have been
instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer’s position in such
proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011