Janet A. Phillips - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          proceedings instituted by the taxpayer primarily for delay or for           
          proceedings in which the taxpayer’s position is frivolous or                
          groundless.  “A petition to the Tax Court, or a tax return, is              
          frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by           
          a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law.”  Coleman             
          v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986) (imposing                  
          penalties on taxpayers who made frivolous constitutional                    
          arguments in opposition to the income tax).                                 
               Groundless litigation diverts the time and energies of                 
               judges from more serious claims; it imposes needless                   
               costs on other litigants.  Once the legal system has                   
               resolved a claim, judges and lawyers must move on to                   
               other things.  They cannot endlessly rehear stale                      
               arguments.  Both appellants say that the penalties                     
               stifle their right to petition for redress of                          
               grievances.  But there is no constitutional right to                   
               bring frivolous suits, see Bill Johnson’s Restaurants,                 
               Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743, 103 S.Ct. 2161, 2170,                 
               76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983).  People who wish to express                     
               displeasure with taxes must choose other forums, and                   
               there are many available. * * * [Id. at 72.]                           
               Respondent has not sought a section 6673 penalty in this               
          case.  Petitioner indicates she relied on Irwin Schiff and was              
          naive about certain of her tax obligations.  In this context and            
          where, as here, the petitioner does not appear to have been                 
          warned about the possibility of a section 6673 penalty, the Court           
          concludes, giving petitioner the benefit of the doubt, that it is           
          not appropriate to impose a penalty in the instant case.                    
          However, the Court explicitly admonishes petitioner that she may,           
          in the future, be subject to a penalty under section 6673 for any           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008