- 9 -
Accordingly, the Court concludes that petitioner is liable
for the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and section 6654(a) additions
to tax for his 2000 and 2001 taxable years.
III. Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty
Respondent, in his pretrial memorandum and on brief, has
asked the Court to impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1).
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to impose a penalty
not in excess of $25,000 on a taxpayer for proceedings instituted
primarily for delay or in which the taxpayer’s position is
frivolous or groundless. “A position maintained by the taxpayer
is ‘frivolous’ where it is ‘contrary to established law and
unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the
law.’” Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 144 (2000)
(quoting Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir.
1986)).
Because the Court has already classified arguments regarding
the PRA as frivolous and as tax-protester arguments, petitioner
should have known of the frivolous nature of his position in this
case. See, e.g., Andreas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-551
(characterizing as frivolous an argument that Commissioner’s
8(...continued)
rejected in United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1191-92 (10th
Cir. 1991).” Id. Finally, we have already rejected reliance on
Pond for the proposition that 1995 amendments to 44 U.S.C. sec.
3512 should alter the manner in which we view arguments based on
the PRA. See Pate v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-132.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007