- 6 -
The instant case falls squarely into this category.
Petitioner presented no evidence in support of her position.
Instead, she advanced numerous frivolous tax protester arguments.
Petitioner was warned by the Court, in a pretrial order, that the
arguments she had been advancing were frivolous or groundless and
could cause her to be subject to penalties under section 6673.
Nevertheless, petitioner continued to advance such arguments.
At trial, petitioner filed a frivolous “Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction”. This motion was
essentially identical to a motion filed by her in a previous case
in this Court, at docket No. 11488-03, which was found frivolous
by the Court in that proceeding. Respondent also moved for a
section 6673 penalty in the case at docket No. 11488-03, although
the Court elected not to impose any penalty. Petitioner’s
persistence in filing the same motion in the instant case
evidenced bad faith. In addition, petitioner issued a subpoena
to one of respondent’s agents, who had no connection with the
years at issue in this case, which made it necessary for
respondent to prepare a motion to quash. The Court quashed the
subpoena as frivolous. Finally, petitioner unreasonably refused
to stipulate matters not fairly in dispute, in violation of Rule
91.
Considered together, petitioner’s actions constitute a
significant waste of the time and resources of this Court and of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007