- 10 -
On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that
there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact. Petitioner
has failed to make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of
respondent’s intended collection action or offer alternative
means of collection. In the absence of a valid issue for review,
we conclude that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law and sustain respondent’s collection actions.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a
taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty no greater than
$25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted
or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the
taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or
groundless. Although we do not impose a section 6673 penalty
4(...continued)
the PRA are not met. This provision, however, was merely a
recodification of a similar provision that had been contained in
44 U.S.C. sec. 3512 since the inception of the PRA in 1980; the
1995 amendments clarified the time and manner in which a 44
U.S.C. sec. 3512 defense could be asserted, and made other
clarifying changes, but did not fundamentally alter the scope or
purposes of this provision. See H. Conf. Rept. 104-99 at 36
(1995), reprinted at 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 248-249; H. Rept. 104-
37, at 53 (1995), reprinted at 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N 164, 216 (“The
intended scope, purposes, and requirements of section 3512’s
current provisions on public enforcement of the Act’s information
collection clearance requirements are unchanged.”). As
previously discussed, numerous judicial precedents have
consistently construed 44 U.S.C. sec. 3512 as offering no
protection from statutory penalties for failure to pay taxes and
file tax returns; nothing in the 1995 amendments suggests any
different result.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007