§6673 — Sanctions and costs awarded by courts
854 cases·574 followed·27 distinguished·6 questioned·4 criticized·1 limited·6 overruled·236 cited—67% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §6673
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that—
proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or
the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies,
the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that any attorney or other person admitted to practice before the Tax Court has multiplied the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously, the Tax Court may require—
that such attorney or other person pay personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct, or
if such attorney is appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that the United States pay such excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees in the same manner as such an award by a district court.
Whenever it appears to the court that the taxpayer’s position in the proceedings before the court instituted or maintained by such taxpayer under section 7433 is frivolous or groundless, the court may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $10,000.
In any civil proceeding before any court (other than the Tax Court) which is brought by or against the United States in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under this title, any monetary sanctions, penalties, or costs awarded by the court to the United States may be assessed by the Secretary and, upon notice and demand, may be collected in the same manner as a tax.
In connection with any appeal from a proceeding in the Tax Court or a civil proceeding described in paragraph (2), an order of a United States Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court awarding monetary sanctions, penalties or court costs to the United States may be registered in a district court upon filing a certified copy of such order and shall be enforceable as other district court judgments. Any such sanctions, penalties, or costs may be assessed by the Secretary and, upon notice and demand, may be collected in the same manner as a tax.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6673-1 Damages assessable for instituting proceedings before the Tax Court merely for delay
854 Citing Cases
485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.
Whether, as Petitioner Contends, Section 6673 Is Unconstitutional Respondent moved to impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). Petitioner contends that section 6673 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it discourages his First Amendment right to make legitimate arguments because it does not apply equally to taxpayers and the Commissioner.
The'sanctioning statutes do not distinguish between winners and losers or between the Government and the opposing party or the taxpayer and the Commissioner . See Roadway Express, Inc. v . Piper, 447 U .S . at 762 (discussing 28 U .S .C . sec . 1927) . Neither section 6673(a)(2) nor 28 U .S .C .
The fact that the hearing requirement is at issue is also seen clearly from the record and from the posttrial brief of respondent, who, like Judge Foley, but unlike the majority, has been involved in this judicial proceeding since its start. But for an argument for sanctions under section 6673, the sole argument that respondent advances on brief concerns the hearing requirement.1 Although petitioners failed to file a posttrial brief, their counsel, Ms.
We - 24 - [*24] need not decide whether petitioner's other argument, that he is functioning as a church (which, in the context ofthis case, we reject), is also frivolous.
We do not impose upon petitioner the $20,000 penalty requested by respondent primarily because we are not convinced that petitioner fully appreciates the magnitude of his actions .
Petitioners had reservations about the way Mr.
We disagree with respondent’s assertion that we should order each petitioner to pay a penalty to the Government under section 6673(a)(1)(B).40 Section 6673(a)(1)(B) provides this Court with the discretion to award to the Government a penalty of up to $25,000 when a taxpayer takes a frivolous or groundless position
On January 3, 2008, the Court received a document fro m petitioner styled as a motion to set aside trial date, in which petitioner contended that a trial was unnecessary because th e Court's review of his case was confined to what took place durin his administrative hearing .
We hold that respondent has satisfied his burden of proof as to the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax through the evidence received at trial (specifically the transcript of petitioner’s zero return and his 2018 wage and income transcript showing that a Form W–2 was issued to him) and respondent’s counsel’
Respondent’s Motion also asks that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673.1 Petitioner filed an Objection to the granting of the Motion on January 17, 2025, but nothing presented therein suggests that there is a genuine dispute as to any material fact.
2015-104, at *26–27 (finding a taxpayer’s background and education is an important consideration when applying section 6673), aff’d, 649 F.
We therefore will impose a penalty of $1,000 pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) on petitioner.
Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1)(B), the Court may require a taxpayer to 5 Petitioner also contends in his Reply Brief that no tax may be assessed with respect to the year in issue if his return is invalid because respondent has not prepared a section 6020(b) substitute for return.
Accordingly, we hold Mr.
533, 543–44 (1992).4 “When an attorney representing the Commissioner has committed a fraud on the Court, the Court has power to assess attorneys’ fees against the Commissioner as a sanction pursuant to section 6673(a)(2)(B) or under the Court’s inherent power.” Dixon, 132 T.C.
We hold that petitioner is liable for a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $4,615.
Section 6673 Penalty Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we have the authority to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 on a taxpayer who, inter alia, institutes or maintains before this Court a proceeding primarily for delay or pursues a position that is frivolous or groundless.
2012).4 The Court also determined petitioner was liable for a $3,000 penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) for asserting frivolous and groundless claims.
We hold that petitioner is liable for a $5,000 penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Williams pursuant to section 6673(a)(1)(B).
Section 6673 Penalty Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we have the authority to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 on a taxpayer who pursues a position that is frivolous or groundless.
Section 6673 Penalty Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we have the authority to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 on a taxpayer who, inter alia, institutes or maintains before this Court a proceeding primarily for delay or pursues a position that is frivolous or groundless.
Respondent’s Simultaneous Answering Brief includes a request that the Court penalize petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Section 6673 Sanctions At the start of trial respondent moved that the Court impose sanctions against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
On May 7, 2018, petitioner, Christian Silver, timely filed a petition in this Court disputing the notice of deficiency.2 At trial an oral motion requesting that we impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 against Mr.
Accordingly, we will order petitioners to pay to the United States a penalty of$2,500 pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Accordingly, we will order petitioners to pay to the United States a penalty of$2,500 pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Section 6673 Penalty Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we have the authority to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 on a taxpayerwho, among other things, institutes or maintains before this Court a proceeding primarily for delay or pursues in this Court a position which is frivolous or groundless.
- 3 - [*3] penalties for 2010, 2011, and 2012; and (4) whether he should be subject to a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a).
Therefore, we hold that SO Andrews wasjustified in concluding that the statutory notices ofdeficiency were - 20 - [*20] sent to petitioner's last known address and were accordingly valid.
Section 6673 Sanction Respondent moved that the Court impose sanctions against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Finally, SO Dunnington warned petitioner that if he continued to maintain a frivolous or groundless position he could be subject to a penalty up to $25,000 by the Court pursuant to section 6673.
Respondent also moved to impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Finally, SO Dunnington warned petitioner that ifhe continued to maintain a frivolous or groundless position he could be subject to a penalty up to $25,000 by the Court pursuant to section 6673.
Section 6673 Sanction Respondent moved that the Court impose sanctions against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
2008 and 2009 were mailed to petitioner; (3) whether petitioner may challenge his underlying tax liabilities for 2008 and 2009; (4) whetherrespondent abused his discretion by denying petitioner a face-to-face hearing; and (5) whether petitioner should be required to pay the United States a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Respondent has moved: (1) for summaryjudgment under Rule 121, contending that his determination to sustain the proposed collection action was proper as a matter oflaw; (2) to impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673; and (3) to remove the suspension ofthe proposed levy pursuant to section 6330(e)(2).
Thus, should we hold that "gain" is an essential element ofincome, compare Conner v.
We hold that he has failed to carry his burden ofproving that he is not liable for the accuracy-relatedpenalties.
Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty The Court now considers sua sponte whether to impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
The issues for consideration are: (1) whether petitioner is liable for penalties under section 6702 for tax years 2002 and 2003; (2) whether respondent's determination to proceed with the proposed collection actions was proper; and (3) whether sanctions should be imposed against petitionerpursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
We hold that the determination to proceed with collection was not an abuse ofdiscretion.
ues for decision are: (1) whetherpetitioner has unreported income as respondent determined; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a) of$9,920.70, $6,834.26, and $1,055.68, respectively; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673.¹ FINDINGS OF FACT Some ofthe facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
-18- [*18] assessment does not mean that no signed summary record ofassessment exists.¹° Under these circumstances, we hold that (1) the assessment was valid and (2) the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it had verified that the assessment had been properly made.
Leyshon a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1)(B) for maintaining a frivolous or groundless litigation position.
Respondenthas also moved to impose a sanction on petitioners pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
While we hold that Mr.
Sanctions Respondent filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to section 6673 in part on the basis ofMr.
ency in petitioner's 2009 income tax of$11,656, an addition to tax of$2,623 under section 6651(a)(1), an addition to tax of$1,807 under section 6651(a)(2), and an addition to tax of$279 SERVED JUN 2 6 2014 - 2 - [*2] under section 6654.¹ After trial respondentmoved to impose sanctions on petitionerpursuant to section 6673.
Therefore, we hold that the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion when it issued a notice ofdetermination upholding the proposed collection action.
We must decide two issues: (1) whether Appeals abused its discretion in sustaining the filing ofthe notice of Federal tax lien; and (2) whether petitioner should be requiredto pay the United States a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a) addition to tax for 2005 unless the Rule 155 computations show that he qualifies for the section 6654(e)(1) exception to the addition to tax." IV.
We hold that it was not.
Respondent has also moved for the imposition ofa penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a) addition to tax for 2007.
Accordingly, we hold that the settlement officer did not abuse his discretion.
the collection action with respect to the unpaid 2003 income tax liability ofpetitioner Larry David Carothers; (2) whether the Commissioner has shown good cause to lift suspension ofthe levy pursuant to section 6330(e)(2); and (3) whether the Court should impose a penalty in an appropriate amount, pursuant to section 6673, on the ground that Mr.
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a) addition to tax for 2007.
gRVED OCT 22 20 - 2 - [*2] (1) whetherpetitioner is entitled to a $1,390 deduction for charitable contributions claimed on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business.2 We hold that he is not; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to a $17,610 deduction for mortgage interest claimed on Schedule C.
We hold that he did; 2Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2006, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.
Respondent did not request that we impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673, and in the exercise ofour discretion we will not i¼pose a section 6673 penalty on petitioner.
The issues remaining for decision are: (1) whether to sustain respondent's determinations with respect to petitioner's 2002 tax liabilities; and (2) whether to grant respondent's motion to impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a).
Additionally, we impose a penalty on petitionerpursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Section 6673 Sanctions Respondent requests that the Court impose sanctions against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
We now consider whether to impose, sua sponte, a penalty against the trust pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Respondent did not request that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673, and we exercise our discretion not to consider or impose a section 6673 penalty on petitioners in these cases.
Accordingly, we hold that Karl Weatherly is liable for the additionto tax under section 6651(a)(1).
Buckardtto pay a $25,000 penaltypursuant to section 6673(a)(1).8 Petitioner's statements in the petition and the reply and at trial demonstrate that he has not fully abandoned arguments that we typically describe as frivolous.
Respondent further move that the Court award a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673 on th basis that petitioner instituted these proceedings primarily for the purpose ofde ay and/or petitioner's position in the present case is frivolous or groundless.
Although we do not impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) at this time, we admonish petitionerthat the Court will consider imposing such a penalty ifhe advances arguments similar to those raised here.
orted income as respondent determined; (2) whether petitioner is liable for thepdditions to tax for failiná to timely file his income tax returns; (3) wliether petitioner is liable forthe additions to tax for failing to make estimated tax payments| and (4) whethër petitioner is liable for sanctions pursuant to section 6673.
Respondent has also moved that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 for petitioner's purported frivolous or groundless litigation position.
Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) we shall require Alderman to pay to the United States a penalty of$4,000.
Accordingly, we hold isAppeals officers may rely on a Form 4340 to verify that a valid assessment was made.
Although respondent did not move for the Court to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673, this Court believes that petitioner's conduct deserves an appropriate sanction under section 6673.
moved for the Court to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673.
We choose not to impose a penalty on petitioner but take this opportunityto warn him that the Court may impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) ifhe returns to the Court and proceeds in a similar fashion in the future.
Section 6673 Penalty Respondent requests that we impose on petitioners a penalty pursuant to section 6673.
MEMORANDUM OPINION HAINES, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121 and respondent' s motion for sanctions pursuant to section 6673.1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule (continued.
Accordingly, we hold that it was not an abuse of discretion for respondent to determine that it was appropriate to sustain the notices of Federal tax lien, and no genuine issue of material fact exists requiring trial.
We have made petitioner aware that by continuing to pursue these arguments, he subjects himself to the possibility of a penalty pursuant to section 6673.
Wnuck and imposing against him a penalty of $1,000 pursuant to section 6673(a) (1)1 for maintaining frivolous positions.
Section 6673 Sanction Awarded by the Court We now consider sua sponte whether to impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a) (1).
to section 469(i); (3) whether petitioners are liable for a section 6662(a) penalty for substantial understatement of income tax and/or negligence for 2005; (4) whether petitioners are liable for a section 6662(a) penalty for negligence for 2006; and (5) whether petitioners are liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) (1).1 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts and certain exhibits have been stipulated.
on 6651(a) (2); (3) whether petitioner is liable for a failure to pay estimated income tax addition to tax pursuant to section 6654; (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for fraudulent failure to file pursuant to section 6651(f); and (5) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673.
Accordingly, we shall impose a $15,000 penalty in each docket in the instant case pursuant to section 6673 .
We accordingly shall impose a penalty of $500 on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we shall require petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty of $10,000 .
At trial respondent (1) filed a motion to conform pleadings to the evidence, which the Court granted, (2) filed an amended answer alleging fraud or in the alternative negligence, and (3) orally moved for the SERVED Oct 26 2010 imposition of a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673, which the Court took under advisement.
Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) we shall require petitioner to pay to the United States .a penalty of $10,000 .
Ulloa a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) .
The issues for decision are whether petitioner is : (1) liable for the deficiencies in his Federal income taxes ; (2) liable for the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) .and 6654(a) ; and (3) liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) .
whether we should impose an additional penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673 for instituting this proceeding primarily for delay or advancing a position that is frivolous or groundless .
We choose.not to impose a penalty on petitioner but take this opportunity to warn - 11 - him that the Court may impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 (a) (1) if he returns to the Court and proceeds in a similar fashion in the future.
The O&OSC further directed petitioner to show cause why the Court should not impose a penalty of $10,000, or some greate r amount not in excess of $25,000, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
Accordingly, the Court grants respondent's motion in that it imposes on petitioner a $3,000 penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) .
We will require Lindberg pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) to pay to the United States a penalty of $1 ;000 .
Accordingly, we hold there was no abuse .
His conduct is precisely the type to which section 6673 applies .
Accordingly, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), and in view of Florance's repetitive abuse of the resources of tl'iis Court both at these proceedings and in the past, we hold Florance is liable for a $17,500 penalty .
pursuant to section 6673(a)(2)(B) by ordering respondent to pay attorney's -1.1- fees of Kersting project petitioners to investigate and present the evidence of Sims's and McWade's misconduct to the Court .
Pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), the Court is authorized to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 when it appears to the Court that, inter alia, proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the position of the taxpayer in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless .
Held, further, R is entitled to .summary judgment that the settlement officer employed in R' s Appeals Office was permitted to conduct th e administrative collection hearing . 4 . Held, further, R is entitled to summary judgment that R's settlement officer was impartial . 5 . Held, further, R is entitled to summary judgment that R's answer was timely filed in accordance with our Rules, and so P is not entitled to a default judgment .
contributed to a charitable organization in 2004 ; and (6) whether the Court should require` petitioners to paya penalty pursuant to section 6673 .
We hold he is subject to tax; (2) whether Karen Lizalek is taxable on half o f petitioner's income as community property .
We take this opportunity to warn petitioner that the Court will impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 if he returns .
Should the Court subsequently ;determine that petitioner used these proceedings ,primarily for purposes of delay and/or to advance frivolous and groundless arguments, the Court ,,will strongly consider imposing a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a) .
As a result, we shall impose upon petitioner a $3,000 penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
Accordingly, we shall impose a $15,000 penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673 .
Accordingly, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), and in view of Florance's repetitive abuse of the resources of this Court both at these proceedings and in the past, we hold Florance is liable for a $15,000 penalty .
Accordingly, under section 6673(a)(1), we hold petitioner is liable for a $25,000 penalty .
As a consequence, we shall impose upon petitioners a $10,000 penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
Section 6673 Penalty Petitioner was repeatedly warned that section 6673 provides for a penalty, not in excess of $25,000, whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay .or the taxpayer's position i s frivolous or groundless .
On February 2, 2009, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a decision that collection can proceed and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 .
Accordingly, we hold that there was no abuse of discretion in determining to proceed with collection, and respondent ' s motion for summary judgment will be granted .
In Dixon IV wemp:osed`additional sanctions ;pursuant to section 6673'(a) (2)';(B) by ° ordering respondent .
deficiency for 2004, and whether petitioner engaged in behavior warranting the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) .
Although the Court found that petitioner was not liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673, the Court stated : "we nevertheless will take this opportunity to admonish petitioner that the Court will consider imposing su~h a penalty should sh e return to the Court and advance similar arguments in the future ." Petitioner did not appeal, and on October 16, 2006, the decision became final .
We also decide on our own motion whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673 .
10719-06L, respondent requests that the Court require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
Section 6673 applies to collection due process proceedings, and a penalty, not in excess of $25,000, may be imposed in this proceeding .
In the followup letter dated April 22, 2008, respondent advised petitioner that continuing to maintain frivolous arguments could subject petitioner to sanctions pursuant to section 6673(a) of up to $25,000, and that respondent would move for such sanctions if petitioner's behavior warranted it .
In respondent's motion, respondent : requests that the Court require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
The issues for decision are : (1) Whether respondent's Appeals Office abused its discretion in determining to proceed with the collection action with respect to petitioner's unpaid income tax liability for tax year 2003; (2) whether the Court should impose a penalty in an appropriate amount, pursuant to section 6673, on the ground that petitioner instituted these proceedings primarily for delay and that petitioner's position is frivolous and/or groundless ; and (3) whether respondent has shown g
Accordingly, we hold that no genuine issue of material fact exists requiring trial and that respondent is entitled to summary judgment .
2004 ; (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failing to pay Federal income tax for 2004 ; (4) whether petitioner is liable for a 10-percent additional tax pursuant to section 72(t) for 2004 ; and (5) whether petitioner engaged in behavior warranting the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a) .
For that reason we now require petitioner to pay a penalty of $2,000 pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
- 3 - petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) .
Accordingly, pursuant to section 6673(a) we hold petitioner is liable for a $2,500 penalty .
We hold that she is ; (2) whether petitioner is liable for tax on $2,224 of dividend income .
- 3 - (3) whether the Court should impose a penalty in an appropriate amount, pursuant to section 6673, on the ground that Mr .
- 9 - Accordingly, we hold that no genuine i sue of material fact exists requiring trial and that respondent is entitled to summary judgment .
In Kinslow, the Court ordered petitioner to pay a penalty in the amount of $1,000, pursuant to section 6673 .
We hold only that the Commissioner's burden of production under section 7491(c) with - 21 - respect to the section 6654 addition to tax requires the Commissioner, at a minimum, to produce evidence that a taxpayer had a required annual payment .under section 6654(d) .
Respondent also filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to section 6673.
- 4 - additions to tax that respondent determined in the notices of deficiency, and imposing a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673.3 The Court’s decision was affirmed on appeal without published opinion and is now final.
Although we shall not impose a penalty upon petitioner pursuant to section 6673, we nevertheless take this opportunity to admonish petitioner that the Court will consider imposing such a penalty should he return to the Court and advance similar arguments in the future.
In the present case, respondent requested that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
Prior to trial, respondent filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to section 6673.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 6673, we require him to pay to the United States a penalty of $2,500.
OPINION HALPERN, Judge: This case is before the Court to consider whether petitioner must pay a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) and whether petitioner’s counsel, Paul J.
Accordingly, we hold petitioner liable for a $25,000 penalty pursuant to section 6673.
- 3 - pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); and (4) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673.
Ni 1995 186,988 37,398 These cases are before the Court on (1) respondent’s motions for (A) judgment on the pleadings and (B) partial summary judgment and (2) the Court’s orders to show cause why it should not impose (A) penalties on petitioners pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) and (B) require counsel for petitioners, Crystal D.
Thus, we would be fully justified in requiring petitioner to pay a penalty pursuant to section 6673.
with the concern that such action be no more intrusive than necessary . In his petition and amended petition, petitioner challenged the validity of the notice of determination . Respondent filed motions to permit levy and to impose sanctions under section 6673 . On April 17, 2006, a hearing was held on both motions . By order dated April 24, 2006, the Court granted respondent's motion to permit levy . The Court found that the requirements of section 6330(e)(2), permitting the levy to proceed du
le income tax returns for each of the years in issue. Held, further, P is liable for the sec. 6654, I.R.C., addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax for the years 1999 through 2001. SERVED .JUN 2 7 2005 - 2 - Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $5,000 Alan D. Stang, pro se. Stephen S. Ash, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies
Written Supervisory Approval for the Court-Ordered Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty Mr. Mattson next contends that section 6751(b)(1) requires that written supervisory approval be obtained before a penalty can be assessed.11 He asks us to invalidate the section 6673(a)(1) penalty that we imposed for tax year 2001 because the IRS has not shown compliance with section 6751(b)(1). While his understanding of section 6751(b)(1) is generally correct, his argument that section 6751(b)(1) applies to section 6
a taxpayernot subject to income tax. Secs. 1363(a) and 7701(a)(14)."), M, 954 F.2d 653 (1lth Cir. 1992); b_u_t s_ee Rollercade, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 113, 118 (1991) (S corporation not "taxpayer" in deciding on whom to impose sanctions under section 6673). Our Opinion today reaches only the question ofwhether an S corporation is a taxpayer for the purposes ofsection 468. We are not deciding whether an S corporation is a taxpayer for every section ofthe Code. -11- Ofcourse this is tax, so
a taxpayernot subject to income tax. Secs. 1363(a) and 7701(a)(14)."), M, 954 F.2d 653 (1lth Cir. 1992); b_u_t s_ee Rollercade, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 113, 118 (1991) (S corporation not "taxpayer" in deciding on whom to impose sanctions under section 6673). Our Opinion today reaches only the question ofwhether an S corporation is a taxpayer for the purposes ofsection 468. We are not deciding whether an S corporation is a taxpayer for every section ofthe Code. -11- Ofcourse this is tax, so
Respondent also moves to impose penalties under section 6673 on petitioner for instituting proceedings primarily for delay or for taking frivolous or groundless positions, and on petitioner's counsel for unreasonable and vexatious proceedings before the Tax Court.
6654(a) 2003 $146,235 $31,215 $34,684 -- 2004 142,828 32,136 35,707 $4,093 2005 151,072 33,991 37,768 6,060 2006 219,412 49,368 54,853 10,383 At the conclusion ofthe trial, the Court, on its own motion, invokedthe application ofsection 6673(a)(1), which, as pertinent, empowers the Court to sanction a taxpayer for instituting or maintaining a proceedingprimarily for delay or for maintaining a frivolous or groundless position. Except forthe increases in the deficiency amounts and additions to tax,
6654(a) 2003 $146,235 $31,215 $34,684 -- 2004 142,828 32,136 35,707 $4,093 2005 151,072 33,991 37,768 6,060 2006 219,412 49,368 54,853 10,383 At the conclusion ofthe trial, the Court, on its own motion, invokedthe application ofsection 6673(a)(1), which, as pertinent, empowers the Court to sanction a taxpayer for instituting or maintaining a proceedingprimarily for delay or for maintaining a frivolous or groundless position. Except forthe increases in the deficiency amounts and additions to tax,
6654(a) 2003 $146,235 $31,215 $34,684 -- 2004 142,828 32,136 35,707 $4,093 2005 151,072 33,991 37,768 6,060 2006 219,412 49,368 54,853 10,383 At the conclusion ofthe trial, the Court, on its own motion, invokedthe application ofsection 6673(a)(1), which, as pertinent, empowers the Court to sanction a taxpayer for instituting or maintaining a proceedingprimarily for delay or for maintaining a frivolous or groundless position. Except forthe increases in the deficiency amounts and additions to tax,
“The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.” Takaba v.
ner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) for failure to timely pay his 2004, 2005, and 2006 Federal income taxes; (5) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6654 (a) for failure to make estimated tax payments for 2004, 2005, and 2006; and (6) whether the Court should impose on petitioner a penalty under section 6673 (a) (1) for advancing frivolous arguments.
Commissioner, supra, because the parties agree that the statute to be applied in this case is section 6673, a sanctioning statute, not section 7430, a prevailing party statute.
At trial, the Court warned petitioner on numerous occasions that the arguments he was making have been deemed frivolous by the Court and it has imposed penalties under section 6673 against taxpayers who raise such arguments .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Overview of Section 7430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Amplification of September 8, 2005 Order . . . . . 19 1. Inapplicability of Section 6673 . . . . . . . 20 2. Real Parties in Interest . . . . . . . . . . . 21 II. Entitlement to Relief Under Section 7430 . . . . . . . . 22 A. Jones Fee Request--Jurisdictional Issue . . . . . . 22 1. Respondent's Position . . . . . . . . . . .
mination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. The issues for decision are whether there was an abuse of discretion in a determination that collection action could proceed and whether the Court should impose a penalty under section 6673. Unless - 2 - otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background All of the facts have b
’s determinations and fails to allege any facts in support of the alleged errors. Respondent asks the Court to grant the motion, to enter a decision in favor of respondent, and to require petitioners to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673. Prior to the Court ruling on respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioners, on September 8, 2000, filed a petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court. The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of the commencement or cont
Whether we shall impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673 for advancing frivolous and/or groundless claims.
Petitioners have brought into the record indications of criminal investigations of trusts similar to the one involved here, and petitioners’ counsel has, in effect, represented that these cases are indistinguishable from Muhich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999- 192, affd. ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir., Jan. 25, 2001). In that case, the Court held, among other things, that certain trusts should be disregarded for tax purposes because they lacked economic substance and that the taxpayers were liable for
Section 6673 Section 911 of the Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 109, provided for an award of damages to the United States in the event a taxpayer instituted a case in the Board of Tax Appeals for purposes of delay. This provision was later adopted as section 6673 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Congress amended section 6673 under th
Section 6673 Section 911 of the Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 109, provided for an award of damages to the United States in the event a taxpayer instituted a case in the Board of Tax Appeals for purposes of delay. This provision was later adopted as section 6673 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Congress amended section 6673 under th
Section 6673 Section 911 of the Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 109, provided for an award of damages to the United States in the event a taxpayer instituted a case in the Board of Tax Appeals for purposes of delay. This provision was later adopted as section 6673 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Congress amended section 6673 under th
Section 6673 Section 911 of the Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 109, provided for an award of damages to the United States in the event a taxpayer instituted a case in the Board of Tax Appeals for purposes of delay. This provision was later adopted as section 6673 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Congress amended section 6673 under th
ection 6659 as determined by respondent. We hold that he is. (7) Whether petitioner is liable for increased interest under section 6621(c). We hold that he is. (8) Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty for maintaining a frivolous action under section 6673. We hold that he is not. FINDINGS OF FACT The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein. Petitioner resided in Toledo, Ohio, at the time the petition was filed. Petitioner has a bachelor of science degree in me
1993-411, we imposed section 6673 sanctions of $5,000 for meritless arguments disputing the Internal Revenue Service’s authority.
axes (plus frivolous tax return penalties and interest) -2- of approximately $20,728 for 1990 and $30,737.52 for 1991.1 Currently, the case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 121 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Petitioner responded to respondent’s motion under Rule 121(b). We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and shall impose a $7,500 penalty against petitioner. In addition, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the part of the
1995-76 (section 6673 penalty against taxpayer was inappropriate where serious failure to present credible evidence at trial was attributable to her counsel).
1995-76 (section 6673 penalty against taxpayer was inappropriate where serious failure to present credible evidence at trial was attributable to her counsel).
Section 6673 Penalty We are authorized by section 6673(a)(1)(B) to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 on a taxpayer who maintains a “frivolous or groundless” position in a proceeding before our Court. Mr. Thody has advanced frivolous arguments regarding the definition of “income” for federal tax purposes and his status as a person subject to federal
ect tax constitutional argument. During the hearing the Court clearly and expressly warned petitioners that their arguments were frivolous and that if they continued to assert these arguments the Court may, at its discretion, impose a penalty under section 6673. The Court denied respondent’s motion and continued the case to the February 3, 2025, trial session in Dallas, Texas, to allow petitioners an opportunity to retain counsel. The Court called this case for trial on February 3, 2025, where p
We will also impose a $7,500 penalty under section 6673.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C.
The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file and litigate.
8 [*8] and warned them that if they continued to pursue frivolous arguments, we would likely impose an additional penalty under section 6673 up to $25,000.
estion, but he denied that he was taxable on it. We advised him that this Court and others have repeatedly characterized as frivolous the argument that wages are not income. We warned him that, by advancing this argu- ment, he risked a penalty under section 6673. He nevertheless persisted in his position, asserting that he intended to take his argument “all the way to the Supreme Court.” OPINION A. Gross Income The Internal Revenue Code provides that “gross income means all income from whatever
Throughout the pretrial proceedings, petitioner repeatedly asserted these arguments despite warnings that he risked a section 6673 penalty.
primarily for delay, [or] (B) the tax- payer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.” The pur- pose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste of judicial and IRS re- sources.
ine dispute of material fact and that the settlement officer (SO) did not abuse her discretion in sustain- ing the collection action. We agree and accordingly will grant respond- ent’s motion. We will also impose on petitioner a $2,000 penalty under section 6673. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Reve- nue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in ef
primarily for delay, [or] (B) the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.” The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste of judicial and IRS resources.
Addis under section 6673 for instituting these proceedings primarily for the purpose of delaying his payment of taxes and for maintaining frivolous positions throughout this case.
rns. Held, further, R properly assessed I.R.C. sec. 6702(a) frivolous return penalties with respect to three of those returns. Held, further, R's NFTL filing is sustained with respect to the three purported returns. Held, further, P is liable for an I.R.C. sec. 6673 penalty for maintaining her frivolous positions in this proceeding. Sheila Ann Smith, pro se. William D. Richard, Lisa M. Oshiro, and Alicia H. Eyler, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge: This case
6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty, not in excess of $25,000, “[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court that--(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained * * * primarily for delay, [or] (B) the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.” The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste of judicial and IRS re- sources.
Section 6673 Sanction This is the third proceeding before this Court and the fourth altogether, see Kaebel v. Commissioner, 770 F. App’x 726, in which petitioner has claimed that deficiency notices for one or all the delinquency years were not properly mailed. It should have become clear to petitioner, at least after the Court of Appeals in Kaebel
Section 6673 Penalty We have previously directed Mr. Schwager's attention to our authority under section 6673 to impose a penalty not in excess of$25,000 "[w]henever it -16- [*16] appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayerhas instituted or maintained a proceeding "primarily for delay" or has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless".5 See,
Because this is petitioner's first appearance before this Court, we decline to impose a section 6673 penalty; 4 Petitioner argued in his petition that his tax liabilities for 2003-06 were uncollectible because the collection period oflimitations under sec.
Frivolous Position Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of$25,000 "[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayerhas instituted or maintained a proceeding "primarily for delay" or has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless." The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste ofjudicial resources.
Section 6673 Penalties Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayerto pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of$25,000 "[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayerhas instituted or maintained proceedings "primarily for de- lay" or has taken a position that "is frivolous or groundless." The purpose ofsec- tion
nce 4 Petitioner acknowledges that "wages" are taxable but argues that the term does not encompass the compensation he received from his employers. This position has been previously rejected by this Court as baseless and subject to the imposition ofsec. 6673 penalties. See Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, , __ F. App'x __, 2016 WL 5800492 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016); Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-232, M, 540 F. App'x 924 (11th Cir. 2013). - 10 - [*10] supporting this contention
Sanctions Under Section 6673 Under section 6673 the Court is permitted to impose a penalty ofup to $25,000 ifa taxpayertakes a frivolous or groundless position or maintains a proceeding primarily for delay.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge: The issues for decision relating to 2009 and 2011 (years in issue) are whether petitioner is liable for income tax deficiencies, section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654 additions to tax, and section 6673 penalties.¹ ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED Aug 07 2017 - 2 - [*2] FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner did not file a 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011 Federal income tax return.
Section 6673 Penalty Finally, petitioner has been warned that he appeared to be taking positions that we have deemed frivolous or groundless or intended for delay. We advised him that section 6673(a)(1)(A) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty ofup to $25,000 for frivolous and groundless arguments or whenever it appears to the Court that "procee
The purpose ofsection 6673 is to com- pel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste ofjudicial resources.
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayerto pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of$25,000 ifit appears that the taxpayerhas instituted or maintained proceedings primarily for delay or the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless. - 9 - [*9] Petitioner has appeared before this Court numer
Frivolous Position Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of$25,000 "[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayerhas instituted or maintained a proceeding "primarily for delay" or has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless." The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste ofjudicial resources.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge: The issues for decision relating to 2009 and 2011 (years in issue) are whether petitioner is liable for income tax deficiencies, section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654 additions to tax, and section 6673 penalties.¹ ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED Aug 07 2017 - 2 - [*2] FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner did not file a 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011 Federal income tax return.
Frivolous Position Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of$25,000 "[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayerhas instituted or maintained a proceeding "primarily for delay" or has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless." The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste ofjudicial resources.
The purpose ofsection 6673 is to com- pel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the - 15 - [*15] waste ofjudicial resources.
The issues for decision are whether petitioner: (1) had unreported income for the taxable years 2000 through 2005 (years at issue); (2) is liable for the additions to tax for these years; and (3) is liable for a penalty under section 6673 on the grounds that petitioner's arguments are frivolous and that the proceeding was commenced and maintained primarily for delay.
Section 6673 Penalty In his motion for summaryjudgment, respondent asks the Court to impose a penalty on petitioners under section 6673(a)(1). That section authorizes this Court to require a taxpayerto pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of$25,000 ifit appears that the taxpayerhas instituted or maintained proceedings primarily for dela
The Court imposed a $3,000 penalty under section 6673, noting that Hyde had been warned at trial but had ignored the warning.
Section 6673 Penalty Finally, we warned petitioner in our order dated September 21, 2015, that she appeared to be taking positions that we have deemed frivolous or groundless or intended for delay. We advised her that section 6673 authorizes the Court to impose a penalty ofup to $25,000 for frivolous and groundless arguments or whenever it appears
Blair reappeared before our Court and continued to assert frivolous arguments.5 We imposed a section 6673 penalty of$10,000.6 In 2010 Mr.
The order also warned petitioner that section 6673 authorizes the Tax Court to impose a penalty in an amount up to $25,000 ifthe taxpayer's position is frivo- lous or is being maintained solely for the purpose ofdelay.
n was denied because it was too close to the trial date. See Rule 121(a). In the order denying leave, the Court noted that the motion was meritorious though untimely and that petitioner's arguments were frivolous and might result in a penalty under section 6673. At the conclusion oftrial, respondent moved for a penalty under that section. Courts have held consistently, in various contexts, that (1) a signature is not required on a notice ofdeficiency and that (2) provisions ofthe Internal Revenu
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Courtto require a taxpayerto pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of$25,000 ifit appears that he has instituted or maintained proceedings primarily for delay or the taxpayer's position "is frivo- lous or groundless." The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to con- form th
Having concluded that petitioner's position in this case is frivo- lous andthat he institutedthese proceedings primarily for delay, we will also im- poseupon him under section 6673 a penalty of$20,000.
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the imposition ofa monetary penalty in an amount up to $25,000 whenever it appears to this Court that a taxpayerhas insti- - 9 - [*9] tuted or maintained Tax Court proceedings primarily for delay or has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless." The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste ofjudicial resources.
The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles.
uld petitioner's liabilities, ifany, for the other years in issue. The Court also warned petitioner that his position was frivolous and that continuation ofgroundless and frivolous positions might subject him to a penalty not to exceed $25,000 under section 6673. Petitionerpersisted in his position at trial that his earnings for architectural services rendered in Hawaii are not taxable because he is a U.S. citizen and has no foreign earned income taxable under section 911 and related regulations
The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to con- form their conduct to settled tax principles before they file returns and litigate.
At the close of trial respondentmoved for sanctions under section 6673, arguing that Mr.
ed on April 15, 2011. SERVED May 27 2014 - 2 - [*2] Held: P's liability for deficiencies and additions to tax for all years is established by P's default, deemed admissions, and facts deemed stipulated. Held, further, R's motion for penalties under I.R.C. sec. 6673 will be granted. Peter H. Jones, pro se. Lisa M. Goldberg, Subin Seth, and AndrewMichael Tiktin, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION HALPERN, Judge: By notices ofdeficiency (notices), respondent determined deficiencies in, and addition
ed on April 15, 2011. SERVED May 27 2014 - 2 - [*2] Held: P's liability for deficiencies and additions to tax for all years is established by P's default, deemed admissions, and facts deemed stipulated. Held, further, R's motion for penalties under I.R.C. sec. 6673 will be granted. Peter H. Jones, pro se. Lisa M. Goldberg, Subin Seth, and AndrewMichael Tiktin, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION HALPERN, Judge: By notices ofdeficiency (notices), respondent determined deficiencies in, and addition
The Court made petitioner aware ofsection 6673 in Golub I by imposing a $10,000 penalty against him for advancirig frivolous arguments.in that case.
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayerto pay to the United States a penalty ofup to $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerprimarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in the proceedings is frivolous or groundless. Petitioner has based his
and additions to tax under I.R.C. sec. 6651(a)(1) and (2) for P's 2001 and 2003 through 2007 tax years. Held: P is liable for the deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax under I.R.C. sec. 6651(a)(1) and (2). Held, further, P is liable for an I.R.C. sec. 6673 penaltyof$3,000. Dwight T. Grandy, pro se. Sebastian Voth, for respondent. SFJWFaB hlUL 1 6 2012 - 2 - MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judae: This case is before us on a petition for redetermination ofincome tax defici
While a section 6673 penalty is not appropriate at this time, the Court warns petitioners that continuing to advance frivolous or groundless arguments may result in penalties in the future. The Court has considered the parties' arguments and, to the extent not addressed herein, concludes that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit. To reflect the fore
Section 6673 Penalty We believe petitioner's case to be åppropriate for a section 6673 penalty Section 6673(á)(1) authorizes this Court to impose á penalty not in excess of $25,000 on a taxpayer for instituting or maintaining proceedings primarily for delay or in which the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless. A position "is - 20 - [*20]
Section 6673 Penalty Petitioners have failed to cooperate with respondent from the time ofthe audit through the time that these cases were finally submitted to the Court. Such lack ofcooperation suggests that petitioners maintained these proceedings primarily for delay and that they unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies. S
0 for 2004, $190.20 for 2005, and $351.20 for 2006. Fennel filed petitions with the Tax Court to redetermine the deficiencies. The Court consolidated the three,cases for trial. At the end of trial, the IRS moved for the imposition of a penalty under section 6673. OPINION 1. Deficiencies in Tax The first issue for decision is whether Fennel earned and failed to report income of $17,049.79 in 2004, $16,978.08 in 2005, and $22,655.73 in 2006. We find that he did. Fennel admitted that he received pa
0 for 2004, $190.20 for 2005, and $351.20 for 2006. Fennel filed petitions with the Tax Court to redetermine the deficiencies. The Court consolidated the three,cases for trial. At the end of trial, the IRS moved for the imposition of a penalty under section 6673. OPINION 1. Deficiencies in Tax The first issue for decision is whether Fennel earned and failed to report income of $17,049.79 in 2004, $16,978.08 in 2005, and $22,655.73 in 2006. We find that he did. Fennel admitted that he received pa
, We shall impose a penalty under section 6673 of $5, 000 .
697.00; i.e., 25 percent of the difference between the deficiency of $21,343.00 and prepaid credits of $2,555.00. At the trial, the Burchfields regaled the Court with their frivolous legal arguments. The Commissioner filed a motion for penalty under section 6673. The Burchfields filed a response that they had prepared before trial. OPINION I. Deficiency The first issue for decision is whether ,the Burchfields are liable for a deficiency of $21,343. The taxpayer generally bears the burden of prov
2004— 142; section 6673 penalties, e.g., Sawukaytis v.
(section 6673 penalty upheld because'the taxpayer should have known that the claim was frivolous) . The Court has discretion in deciding. whether to impose the penalty . See Neonatology Associates, P .A. v . Commissioner ,` 115 T .C .'43, 102 (2000)., affd . 299 F .3d 221 (3d Cir . 2002 ) Petitioner is a shrewd person, works for a prestigious film c
Frivolous Argument Penalty Under Section 6673 Section 6673(a) (1) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty of up: to $25,000 on petitioner if it appears that petitioner's position in this proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
he section 6651(a)(2) late-payment addition to tax for the tax years at issue, (4) whether he is liable for the section 6654 failure-to-pay- estimated-tax addition to tax for the tax years at issue, and (5) . whether he is liable for a penalty under section 6673. 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 3 - FINDINGS OF FACT Some of th
SERVED 3 1 6 2010 - 2 - Therefore, the issue for decision is whether a penalty should 'e imposed under section 6673 on the grounds that petitioner's arguments are frivolous and that the proceeding was commenced 2nd maintained primarily for delay .
iciency. P contested t-he deficiency, arguing that the U.S. Government. did not have the authority to tax him because he is a citizen onl of Alabama and not of the United States. Held: P is liable for the deficiency. Held, further, P is lia le for a sec. 6673, I.R.C., penalty. William Sandlin McLaurine I] pro se. Marshall R. Jones, for respohdent.. SERVED Oct 26 2010 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Éourt on a petition for redetermination of an
the payment of his military retirement funds to his former spouse and that he should not be taxed on these funds. Held: P is liable for the deficiency and for additions to tax under sec. 6651(a) (1) and (2) , I.R..C. Held, further, P is liable for a sec. 6673, I.R.C. penalty. Harry E. Mathews, pro se. Nancy L. Karsh, for respondent. RVED OCT 1 9 2010 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: After a concession by respondent,I the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner
864, 872-873 (1980) (imposing a section 6673 penalty on the Court's own motion where the taxpayers had attempted twice to relitigate an issue previously decided against them), affd.
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1),provides that this Court may, require the taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears to this Court that : (a) The proceedings were instituted or,maintained by the taxpayer primarily for-delay; '(b) the 2 1 taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless ; or (c) the taxpayer unreas
-11- Section 6673 Penalty Respondent has moved for a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) . Section 6673(a)(1) provides thatthis Court may require the taxpayer to pay a penalty not infexcess of $25,000 whenever it appears to this Court that : (a)'The proceedings were instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay ; (b) the taxpayer's position
Section 6673 Penalty Under section 6673(a)(1)(A) and (B), this Court may require a taxpayer to. pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 if (1) the taxpayer has instituted or maintained a proceeding primarily for delay or (2) the taxpayer's position is "frivolous or groundless" . We may, on our own initiative, require a taxpayer to pay a section 6673
We review the notice pursuant t o T SERVED JAN 1 2 2009 - 2 - sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1) .1 Respondent has moved for summary judgment and to impose a section 6673 penalty (the motion) .
51(a)(2) 1 Sec . 6654 2004 $24,573 $1,210 .05 $645 .36 $94 .19 2005 20,092 997 .88 221 .75 108 .11 1 Respondent concedes the sec . 6651(a)(2) additions to tax -t?,.k for both years . Respondent has also moved for the imposition of penalties unde r section 6673 . `Urhle`ss otherwise indicated, all section references are t o the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue . At the time the petitions in these cases were filed, petitioner lived in Arizona . Background Petitioner filed no
petitioner had maintained frivolous positions with regard to the Federal income tax in hi s communications withl,respondent and in his filings with the Court , sustained additions to tax, and awarded to the United States a penalty of $2,000 under section 6673 . In this case, petitioner maintained frivolous positions in his petition, in discovery promulgated to respondent, insmotions filed with the Court, in his pretrial memorandum, and at trial . Respondent's answer warned petitioner that his a
2000-116 ( Dixon IV) (supplementing Dixon III), we awarded Kersting project petitioners fees and expenses under section 6673 ( a)(2)(B)2 for representation services in this Court rendered by Attorneys Joe Alfred Izen (Izen), Robert Allen Jones (Jones), and Robert Patrick Sticht (Sticht) during the DuFresne remand .
2000-116 ( Dixon IV) (supplementing Dixon III), we awarded Kersting project petitioners fees and expenses under section 6673 ( a)(2)(B)2 for representation services in this Court rendered by Attorneys Joe Alfred Izen (Izen), Robert Allen Jones (Jones), and Robert Patrick Sticht (Sticht) during the DuFresne remand .
Nonetheless, we shall not impose a penalty under section 6673 (a) (1) on petitioner.' We caution him that he may be subject to such a penalty if in the future he institutes or maintains a proceeding in this Court primarily for delay and/or his position in any such proceeding is frivolous or groundless .
276 (2002), an individual income tax case brought by a pro se petitioner, we imposed a $25,000 sanction under section 6673 after we found that the taxpayer had intentionally delayed the case by serially filing bad faith bankruptcy cases (and even forging what looked like bankruptcy court documents).
Respondent has moved for summary judgment and to impose a penalt y SERVED NOV 17 2008 - 2 - under section 6673 (the motion) .' Petitioner objects (the response) .
1982-198 (shutting another revisitation of the same issues from the prior cases for the 1977, 1978, and 1979 tax years by using collateral estoppel--and, by that point, section 6673), followed by Jacobs v.
ondent's revised deficiency computations . See supra note 1 . The penalty amounts in the notice of deficiency were $12,746 and $16,349, for 2001 and 2002, respectively . - 3 - (2) whether to grant respondent's motion to impose sanctions pursuant to section 6673 . FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated by the parties . The stipulations, with accompanying exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference . At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in Sonora, Califo
Penalty Respondent urges us to impose a section 6673 penalty upon petitioner.
The revenue ruling, under the heading "CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES", notes that in addition to several other potential penalties, taxpayers may be liable for "a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673 if the taxpayer makes frivolous arguments in the United States Tax Court ." Id.
The Court warns petitioners and their counsel that, if justified, the Court will not hesitate to impose sanctions and costs as provided for in section 6673 ." - 11 - (1) He did not give petitioner adequate time to make his case, including raising collection alternatives, such as an offer-in- compromise ; (2) petitioner's counsel was not provided documentation showing that the IRS had met the requirements of all applicable laws and administrative procedures ; (3) the settlement officer fa
The Court has since repeatedly disposed of cases premised on arguments akin to'those raised herein summarily and with imposition of the section 6673 penalty .
Section 6673 Penalty Respondent has moved for a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). Whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless, the Court may require the taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000. sec. 6673(
en t Docket No . 15413-05L. Filed January 31, 2007 . Linda L . Pool, pro se . Erin K. Salel, for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 . 1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . SERVED JAN 3 1 2007 1 - 2 - Backgr
MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose a penalty under section 6673.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of (continued...) - 2 - Background Respondent determined a deficiency in income tax of $17,380 and additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654 of
MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge; This matter is before the Court on respondent ' s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (a)(1) .
Section 6673 In the recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, Chief Special Trial Judge Panuthos cautioned petitioner about section 6673. We repeat that warning here. Section 6673(a)(1) provides for a penalty not in excess of $25,000 if (A) proceedings in this Court have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay o
They all argue that the standard for imposition of a penalty under section 6673 is bad faith, and bad faith does not encompass nonfrivolous arguments .
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty, not to exceed $25,000, if it appears that the taxpayer has instituted or maintained a proceeding primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless. Although respondent has not asked the Court to imp
Latos under section 6673 ( a)(1), we consider sua sponte whether we should impose a penalty on her under that section .
d all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . - 2 - Whether respondent may proceed with collection of petitioner's 1992 and 1993 income tax liabilities ; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673 . Background At the time he filed the petition, petitioner resided in Florida . Petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns for 1992 and 1993 . On March 13, 1995, respondent prepared substitutes for return for 1992 and 1993 . On A
Section 6673 Penalty Respondent has moved for a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). Whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless, the Court may require the taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000. Sec. 6673(
cket No . 13821-05L . Filed March 28, 2007 . William J . Brumback, pro se . Erin K . Salel , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 . All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . SERVED MAR 2 & 20Q1, - 2 - Background Petitioner submitted to the Internal Revenue Service a Form 1
account under section 72(t) . We hold that he is . The third issue is whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 . We hold that he is . The fourth issue is whether we should impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673 . We hold that we shall not impose a penalty in this case, but caution petitioner that he is at risk of a penalty if he brings similar arguments before the Court in the future . Background This case was submitted fully stipulated pursuan
MEMORANDUM OPINION RUWE, Judge : This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 .1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .
Section 6673 Penalty Respondent has requested that the Court impose a penalty under section 6673 on the ground that the arguments advanced by petitioner to respondent and the Court are frivolous . Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 when it appears to the Court that, inter alia, proceedings have been
ddition to tax determined by respondent under section 6651(a)(2), (5) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax determined by respondent under section 6654, and (6) whether the Court should impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673 . FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts of the case were stipulated and are so found. When the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Denver, Colorado . Petitioner received a distribution of $43,331 from the Public Employees Retirement As
The Court has since repeatedly disposed of - 6 - cases premised on arguments akin to those raised herein summarily and with imposition of the section 6673 penalty.3 See, e.g., Craig v.
In a motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673, respondent warned petitioner that his unfounded allegations constituted a frivolous appeal subject to monetary sanctions under section 6673(a)(1) .
In such circumstances, Internal Revenue Code section 6673 authorizes a penalty not in excess of $25,000 (in each docketed case).
n issue . Accordingly, petitioners are liable for the section 6662(a) penalty for 2002 and 2003 . C. Section 6673(a)(1 ) The Court considers , sua sponte, whether petitioners have engaged in behavior that warrants imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673 . Section 6673 (a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25 , 000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for d
“The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.” Takaba v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION RUWE, Judge : This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 .1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .
on references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . SERVE D MAR 2 1 2007 - 2 - respondent orally moved to impose a $5,000 penalty pursuant to section 6673 . After concessions, the issues for decision are : (1) Whether the pension distributions petitioner received during 2001 from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and from the Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge (TRW) pension plan are includab
"The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate ." Takaba v .
We have imposed a penalty under section 6673 on taxpayers who have raised arguments similar to those petitioner has raised .
for such action . Respondent also contends that - 7 - petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6654(a) for failing to pay estimated tax in 2001 . At the conclusion of the trial, respondent filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to section 6673 . In his brief, respondent reiterates his position that petitioner's positions are frivolous and groundless and that the Court should impose sanctions . II . Filing Requirement/Deficiencies The law imposes a Federal tax on the taxable inco
Section 6673 In the recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, Chief Special Trial Judge Panuthos cautioned petitioner about section 6673 . We repeat that warning here . Section 6673(a)(1) provides for a penalty not in excess of $25,000 if (A) proceedings in this Court have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay
Section 6673 Penalty Respondent has moved for a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). Whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless, the Court may require the taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000. Sec. 6673(
They all argue that the standard for imposition of a penalty under section 6673 is bad faith, and bad faith does not encompass nonfrivolous arguments .
y respondent, (2) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), (3) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6654, and (4) whether the Court should impose on petitioner a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts have been stipulated and are so found. When the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Cottonwood, Arizona. In 2001, petitioner received nonemployee compensation in the total amount of $11,227.30 from Hy-V
MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge : This case is before the Court on respon- dent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (respondent's motion) .
Section 6673 Penalty 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 petition to the Tax Court, or a tax return, is frivolous if it is contrary to T - 12 - established law and uns
Practice and Procedure . SERVED NOV 2 7 2006 - 2 - issues for decision are : (1) Whether respondent may proceed with collection of petitioners' 1997 and 1998 income tax liabilities ; and (2) whether petitioners are liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673 . FINDINGS OF FACT None of the facts have been stipulated . At the time they filed the petition, petitioners resided in Portland, Oregon . Petitioners timely filed Federal income tax returns for 1997 and 1998 . Respondent sent notices of
nternal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. SERVED .JUL 5 2006 - 2 - 1997 income tax liability; and (2) whether petitioners are liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in Las Veg.as, Neva
rmined a deficiency and additions to tax pursuant to secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a), I.R.C. Held: P is liable for the deficiency determined by R and additions to tax pursuant to secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a), I.R.C. Held, further, a penalty pursuant to sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and awarded to the United States in the amount of $6,000. William M. Leggett, pro se. Monica J. Miller, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: Respondent determined a Federal inco
The issues to be decided are whether petitioner is liable for the deficiency as determined by - 2 - respondent, whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax as determined by respondent, and whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. All section and Code references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background The facts in this case have been established by the Court’s order of D
- 3 - conceded the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax and moved for the imposition of a section 6673 penalty.
etitioner is liable for deficiencies for her taxable years 1999 and 2000; (2) whether petitioner is liable for penalties under section 6662(a) for her taxable years 1999 and 2000; and (3) whether the Court should impose a penalty, sua sponte, under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Background Some of the facts have been deemed stipulated pursuant to .Rule 91(f) and are so found.3 The stipulated facts, with accompanying exhibits, are incorporated in our findings by this reference. At the. time th
tax, a $29,271 .44 addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), a $7,155 .24 addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2), and a $3,356 .85 addition to tax 23 SEWEI) 20 - 2 - under section 6654(a) .' This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (motion to dismiss) .
MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a de.termination by R that levy action is appropriate. Held: R's determination to proceed with collection by levy is sustained; Held, further, a penalty pursuant to sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and awarded to the United States in the amount of $2,500. William M. Leggett, pro se. Monica J. Miller, for respondent. sEgyEn DEC 2 8 2006 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case is bef
006 . Jerre Marvine Wood, pro se . Jeffrey S . Luechtefeld , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge : The instant case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121 and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 . The issue we must decide is whether respondent's Appeals Office abused its discretion in determining to proceed with collection of petitioner's tax liability for taxable year 2002 . After SERVO SEP 2 5 2006 ~3 - 2 - considering respond
A hearing was held thereon. For :the reasons set forth below, we shall grant respondent's motion. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary udgment may be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact an
On December 2, 2005, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment , asking the Court to find as a matter of law that respondent's determination sustaining the filing of a Federal tax lien was not an abuse of his discretion and that a penalty under section 6673 ( a)(1) should be imposed against petitioner .
ed, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All monetary amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar. SERVED JUL 1 9 2006 - 2 - for decision is whether a penalty should be imposed on petitioner under section 6673. Background The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate herein. When he filed his petition, petitioner resided in Saint Marys, Kansas. Until his retiremeñt in 2001, petitioner was employed by the U.S. Department of Educat
ober 3, 2006 . John N. Sweeney, pro se . Monica J . Miller, for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge : The instant case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121' and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 . The issue we 'Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code . SERVED OCT - 3 2006 - 2 - must decide is whether responde
d August 14, 2006 . Marc A. Clampitt, pro se . Daniel N . Price , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge : This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121 and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 . The issue we must decide is whether respondent's Appeals Office abused its discretion in determining to proceed with collection of /3 SERVr-u AUG 14 20061 - 2 - petitioner's tax liability for taxable year 1998 . After considering respo
The record in the instant case shows that respondent warned petitioner in November 2003, and again in the notice of determination, that this Court could impose a penalty under section 6673, and further warned petitioner that his section 861 argument was frivolous and groundless. Section 6673(a)(1) provides that this Court may require
We hold that respondent did not abuse his discretion and that a penalty under section 6673 is not warranted at this time .
We take this opportunity to warn petitioner that the Court will impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 if he returns to the Court and proceeds in a similar fashion in the future.
section 6673 (motion to dismiss) . ' On June 13, 2005, petitioner filed a petition with the Court . By order dated June 21, 2005, the Court directed petitioner to file a proper amended petition on or before August 5, 2005 . Petitioner filed the amended petition on August 4, 2005, based upon notices of determination concerning collection action(s) u
termined deficiencies and additions to tax, which P then contested on the basis of tax protester arguments. Held: P is liable for the deficiencies determined by R, for additions to tax under secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654, I.R.C., and for a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C. Charles Raymond Wheeler, pro se. Joan E. Steele, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: In these consolidated cases, respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax with re
e to file his 2002 tax return; (6) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) for failure to make estimated payments for tax years 1999 through 2002; and (7) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673. 2To be calculated. 3To be calculated. 4Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. -
We hold that respondent did not abuse his discretion and that a penalty under section 6673 is not warranted at this time .
. Whether petitioner’s failure to file Federal income tax returns for each taxable year in issue was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. 7. Whether the Court should grant respondent’s motion to - 3 - impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background At the time of filing the petition in the instant case, petitioner resided in G
istributions from her individual retirement accounts (IRAs), (3) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax determined by respondent under section 6651(a)(1), and (4) whether the Court should impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts have been stipulated and are so found. When the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Cobb, California. In 1999, petitioner received gains·of $16,194 from the sale of securities through National Financial
orting wages earned from Delta Air Lines, - 2 - Inc. Because this is the third case in which petitioner raised the same or similar arguments, and because she has had prior warning, the Court, on its own motion, is imposing a penalty of $7,500 under section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background Petitioner resided in Florence,
Respondent has orally moved that the Court award sanctions under section 6673, alleging that petitioner’s position is frivolous and interposed merely for delay.
termined deficiencies and additions to tax, which P then contested on the basis of tax protester arguments. Held: P is liable for the deficiencies determined by R, for additions to tax under secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654, I.R.C., and for a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C. Charles Raymond Wheeler, pro se. Joan E. Steele, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: In these consolidated cases, respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax with re
Whether the Court should impose a section 6673 penalty on petitioner.
Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay and fo r maintaining frivolous or groundless positions .
Section 6673 Penalty 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 petition to the Tax Court, or a tax return, is frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by
MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
dent conceded the additions to tax under section 6651 (a)(2) and, accordingly, alleged increases in the additions to tax under section 6651 ( a)(1) . The issue remaining for decision is whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States .under section 6673 . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Background All of the facts have been
udge : The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 .1 The matter is presently before the Court on respondent's motion for imposition of a penalty under section 6673 . Background Relevant background information may be summarized as follows . Petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns for the 1987 to 1992 taxable years . On May 9, 1994, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioner a
MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge : This case is before the Court on respon- dent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (respondent's motion) .
6, 2006. Robert B . Keenan, pro se . Linette B . Angelastro , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge : This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121,1 and to impose a penalty under section 6673 . ' Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the (continued . . . ) SERVED DEC - 6 2006 - 2 - Backgrou
ondent conceded the additions to tax under section 6651 (a)(2) and, accordingly, alleged increases in the additions to tax under section 6651 (a)(1) . The issue remaining for decision is whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States under section 6673 . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Background All of the facts have been
x under section 6651(a)(2) for failing to pay the amount shown as tax on a return; (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6654 for failing to pay estimated taxes; and (5) whether the Court should impose a penalty under section 6673. Background Petitioner resided in Colorado Springs, Colorado, when he petitioned the Court in this case. Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 2003. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner determining tha
for 2001; (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 2001; (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) for 2001; and (5) whether to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Rule 91(f), some of the facts have been deemed stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time he filed the petition, pet
Section 6673 Penalty Taxpayers invoking frivolous and groundless claims and instituting proceedings under section 6330(d) for the purpose of delay are subject to penalties. Sec. 6673(a)(1). A position is frivolous where it is “contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law.” Coleman v. Commission
to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $2,500. Gary Wright, pro se. Alan J. Tomsic, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case arises from a petition for judic
The notice also advised petitioner of the Tax Court's authority to impose a penalty under section 6673 where 5 litigants advance frivolous or groundless positions and of the Appeals officer's view that the positions petitioner had taken in his hearing request and at the hearing were groundless.
Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay and for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions.
lusion of the trial, petitioner failed to file any posttrial briefs. We - 9 - conclude that petitioner instituted and maintained this proceeding primarily for delay. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for a $15, 000 penalty pursuant to section 6673 (a) . In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not mentioned above, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order and d
- 3 - Fifth, shall we impose a penalty under section 6673 against petitioner?
15, 2005. o Meredyth E. Kilgore, pro se. Cynthia A. Berry, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121, and motion to impose a penalty under section 6673. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. SERVED FEB 1 5 2005 - 2 - Background At the time of the filing of the petition, petitione
the issues remaining for decision are (1) petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the income tax, (2) petitioner’s gain, if any, from certain sales of securities, (3) the additions to tax, and (4) our imposition of a penalty upon petitioner under section 6673. - 3 - Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. For convenience, monetary amounts have been roun
Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay and for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions.
to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $2,500. David A. Lehmann, pro se. Jonae A. Harrison, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case arises from a petition f
MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respon- dent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673¹ (respondent's motion).
MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673.¹ ¹ -Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
y R to leave in place a filed notice of Federal tax lien. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the filed notice of tax lien, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $5,000. Harold E. Call, pro se. Alan J. Tomsic, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case arises from a petition for ju
at–- (A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay, 8(...continued) Hiland, we held that the contentions raised by the taxpayer were frivolous and/or groundless, and we imposed a penalty pursuant to sec. 6673. -11- (B) the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or (C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies, the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the Uni
ction action as determined in the notice of determination with respect to petitioner’s taxable year 2001. We hold that respondent may proceed with that collection action. We must also decide whether to grant respondent’s motion for a penalty under section 6673. We shall deny that motion. FINDINGS OF FACT All of the facts have been stipulated by the parties and are so found.2 Petitioner resided in Knightdale, North Carolina, at the time he filed the petition in this case. Petitioner and Victoria
tion to tax pursuant to sec. 6654(a) is due from petitioner for 2000. - 3 - 6651(a)(1) for 2000 and 2001, (3) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) for 2001, and (4) whether to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT None of the facts have been stipulated with the exception that at trial petitioner stipulated at the time he filed his petition he resided in Lakewood Village, Texas.3 I. 1998 and 1999 Petitioner and his wife, Laurie G.
MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respon- dent's motion for summary judgment (respondent's motion for summary judgment) and respondent's motion for a penalty under section 6673¹ (respondent ' s motion for a penalty) .
Section 6673 Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous or groundless positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A position maintained by the taxpayer is “frivolous” where it is “contrary to established
Section 6673 Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous or groundless positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A position maintained by the taxpayer is “frivolous” where “it is contrary to established
Whether petitioners are liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay and for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions.
on to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, because the underlying tax liability is not at issue and R has shown good cause, suspension on levy action is lifted pursuant to sec. 6330(e)(2), I.R.C. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $10,000. Randal W. Howard, pro se. Cameron M. McKesson and Robin M. Ferguson, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM OPINION WHERRY, Judge: Petitioner invoked the Court's
tioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 1999, 2000, and 2001; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) for 2000 and 2001; and (4) whether to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided in Arlington,
to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file Federal income tax returns; (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6654(a) for failure to pay estimated taxes; and (4) whether the Court should impose a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and supplemental stipulation of facts are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Woodinville, Washington, when the p
A penalty shall be imposed on petitioner under section 6673 for advancing frivolous and/or groundless claims.
. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986); Rowlee v. - 3 - Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); see also Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987). The Court further warned petitioner that, if he persisted, damages would be imposed under section 6673. Section 6673(a) provides that, if the Court determines that proceedings are maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or the position of a taxpayer is groundless or frivolous, the Court may award a penalty to the United States in an a
Respondent did not request the Court to, and we do not, impose a section 6673 penalty.
to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $3,000. Robert E. Crandall, pro se. Rollin G. Thorley, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case arises from a petition
defenses; (3) Appeals Officer Johnson had determined that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure had been met; (4) this Court has held that many arguments raised by petitioners are “tax protestor” arguments that need not be considered by Appeals officers in section 6330 hearings and that may result in sanctions pursuant to section 6673; and (5) petitioners would be allowed 10 days to raise any procedural issues with Appeals Officer Johnson.
MEMORANDUM OPINION HAINES, Judge: This matter is before us on respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121 and to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
These cases are before the Court on, respondent-'s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (a) .¹ ¹ Únless other,wise indicated, all section references are to thé Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and (ùontinued.
s by R that l'ien and levy actions were appropriate. S Held: Because Ps have advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notices of lien and levy, R's determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from Ps and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $5,000. Crevenne C. and Barbara A. Carrillo, pro sese. Rollin G. Thorley, for respondent. SERVED DEC 2 0 2005 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY,
Petitioner was specifically warned of the likelihood of a penalty under section 6673 if he persisted in his frivolous arguments.
Section 6673 allows the Court to impose a penalty, in an amount up to $25,000, on a taxpayer if the position or positions asserted by the taxpayer in the case are frivolous or groundless. Sec. 6673(a)(1)(B). Petitioner’s positions were those of a classic tax protester. Before, during, and after trial, petitioner flooded respondent and this Court wi
The Court went further and assessed a substantial penalty under IRC §6673 for taking the Court’s time with arguments that have been long settled as a matter of law.
Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay and for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions.
MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and motion to impose a penalty under section 6673.¹ ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983- 473; Brennan v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983). - 3 - The Court further warned petitioner that, if he persisted, damages would be imposed under section 6673. Section 6673(a) provides that, if the Court determines that proceedings are maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or the position of a taxpayer is groundless or frivolous, the Court may award a penalty to the United States in an a
e to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R's determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, damages under sec. 6673, I.R.C., are due from P and are awarded to the United States in the amount of $2,500. Thomasita Taylor, pro se. Ric D. Hulshoff, for respondent. SERVED APR 6 2005 - 2 - MEMORANDUM OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on resp
1987) (section 6673 penalty upheld because taxpayer should have known claim was frivolous). Petitioner attached to his petition in docket No. 15561-04 a six-page letter replete with tax-protester rhetoric, asserting there is no such thing as an income tax and containing arguments regarding the 16th Amendment. On February 13, 2004, petitioner filed, in doc
face-to-face section 6330 hearing, bring witnesses, and record the section 6330 hearing with a court reporter and tape recorder. 2 This document concludes with six pages devoted to penalties for pursuing frivolous tax arguments including citation to sec. 6673 and citation to and discussion of numerous cases, including sec. 6330 collection cases and other cases, where the Court has imposed penalties on taxpayers for advancing frivolous arguments. - 5 - On July 2, 2004, Settlement Officer Feist ca
MEMORANDUM OPINION HAINES, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121 and to impose a penalty under section 6673.¹ ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The issues for decision are whether petitioner’s underpayment of taxes and failure to file tax returns for the years in issue were due to fraud and whether a penalty should be awarded under section 6673 by reason of petitioner’s groundless and frivolous positions maintained in this proceeding.
Whether petitioners are liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay and 1(...continued) property law, each petitioner received one-half of the total income received by petitioners in 1994, 1996, and 1997.
ermination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced solely groundless e complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R's determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, damages under sec. 6673, I.R.C., are due from P and are awarded to the United States in the amount of $2,000. Lucinda A. Yazzie, pro se. Stephen S. Ash, for respondent. 010 SERVED .0CT 1 3 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on resp
Respondent also moved to impose sanctions under section 6673 against petitioners for instituting these proceedings primarily for delay and for petitioners unreasonably failing to pursue available administrative remedies.
determined a deficiency and additions to tax, which P then contested on the basis of tax protester arguments. Held: P is liable for the deficiency determined by R, for additions to tax under secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654, I.R.C., and for a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C. Brian Timothy Brunner, pro se. Kathleen K. Raup, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: Respondent determined a Federal income tax deficiency for petitioner’s 1997 taxable year in the amount of
ted that he had made a diligent inquiry and found that no negotiations were currently in progress with petitioner. Respondent further stated that he intended to - 9 - file a motion for summary judgment and would be requesting a penalty pursuant to section 6673. On May 21, 2003, the Court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss. That same day, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (motion for summary judgment). Attached as exhibits to the motion f
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. It is clear to the Court that petitioner has instituted and maintained this proceeding primaril
In his trial memorandum, - 2 - respondent raised the issue of whether petitioner should be required to pay a penalty pursuant to section 6673 for instituting and/or maintaining this proceeding, and if so, the amount thereof.1 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
llection of his 1997 income tax.1 On December 2, 2002, respondent orally moved to have the Court impose against 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended. - 2 - petitioner a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. The stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference. At the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided in Brook
Respondent raised the issue of whether - 2 - petitioner should be required to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673 for instituting and/or maintaining this proceeding, and if so the amount thereof.1 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
er 29, 2004. Lionel D. Kolker, pro se. Karen Nicholson Sommers, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121,1 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. 1All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. - 2 - Summary judgment is a procedure designed to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary, time-co
2004. Robert and Polly A. Gatlos, pro sese. Jeffrey C. Venzie, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121,1 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Summary judgment is a procedure designed to expedite 1All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue. - 2 - litigati
determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced solely groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, damages under sec. 6673, I.R.C., are due from P and are awarded to the United States in the amount of $1,000. Travis D. Hiland, pro se. Cameron M. McKesson, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motio
Office of Appeals (Appeals) that respondent may proceed with a levy upon petitioner’s property to collect petitioner’s 1999 Federal income -2- tax liability.1 Respondent currently moves the Court for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Respondent attached to his motion the declaration of his counsel, Wendy S. Harris, and 11 exhibits. Petitioner filed with the Court a response (response) to respondent’s motion and attached to the response one exhibit. The response states
for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined a $2,987 deficiency in and a $327.40 penalty pursuant to section 66621 on petitioner’s 1999 Federal income tax. On July 15, 2003, respondent filed a motion for sanctions under section 6673. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the applicable Internal Revenue Code. - 2 - After concessions, the sole issue for decision is whether to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Background Petitioner is 26
ection. On September 13, 2003, petitioner filed a petition with the - 5 - Court. In the petition, petitioner advances frivolous and meritless arguments. On March 29, 2004, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673. On April 20, 2004, petitioner filed a lengthy opposition to respondent’s motion containing frivolous and meritless arguments. On May 18, 2004, petitioner filed an amended affidavit in support of his opposition to respondent’s motion for
A taxpayer’s position 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); Booker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-261; see also Hansen v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1464, 1470 (9th Cir. 1987) (trial court’s findi
Although we shall not impose a penalty upon petitioner pursuant to section 6673, we nevertheless take this opportunity to admonish petitioner that the Court will consider imposing such a penalty should he return to the Court and advance similar arguments in the future.
nts, and requests set forth in petitioner’s response are very similar to the contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See, e.g., Fink v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-61. - 12 - to section 6673(a)(1). Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States
, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and respondent’s Motion to Impose a Penalty under Section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - Background Petitioners failed to fi
cerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. The issues for decision are whether respondent abused his discretion in determining that collection action could proceed for 1998 and - 2 - whether the Court should impose a penalty under section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the relevant year. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Background All of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulated facts and the attached
rth in petitioners’ response as to Mr. Holguin are similar to the types of statements, contentions, and arguments set forth in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by (continued...) - 13 - Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in determining to proceed with the collection action as determined in the notice of dete
Although petitioner was warned repeatedly both before and during trial that his antics could result in the imposition of sanctions under section 6673, he has been undeterred.
he one provided to him at the hearing by Thomas Smith. Although these frivolous arguments may have been provided by Mr. Smith, it was petitioner’s choice to follow this bad advice, and petitioner must face the consequences of his actions. - 10 - the Court to waste its limited resources. Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty of $5,000 pursuant to section 6673. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A position maintained by the taxpayer is “frivolous” where it is “contrary to established law a
Whether we shall impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673 for advancing frivolous and/or groundless claims.
f, a reputed tax protester. - 5 - Discussion Respondent seeks summary judgment with respect to whether he may proceed to collect certain outstanding tax liabilities against petitioner and whether petitioner should be held liable for a penalty under section 6673. Rule 121 provides for summary judgment to be employed as to part or all of the legal issues in controversy if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a summary adjudication may be rendered as a matter of law. See also Sunds
nts, and requests set forth in petitioner’s response are very similar to the contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See, e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45. - 9 - to section 6673(a)(1). Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States
Commissioner, supra at 373 (imposing a penalty pursuant to section 6673 of $10,000); Crow v.
d requests set forth in petitioners’ response are similar to the statements, contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See, e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45. - 8 - whenever it appears to the Court, inter alia, that a proceeding before it was instituted or maintained primarily
MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respon- dent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (respondent’s motion).1 We shall grant respondent’s 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.
2. Filed September 30, 2003. Michael T. Carey and Leone R. Carey, pro se. Jeremy L. McPherson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION COLVIN, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment and motion for a penalty under section 6673. Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax of $498,933 for 1997, an addition to tax under section - 2 - 6651(a) of $74,874.99, and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $99,786.60. As discussed
MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (respondent’s motion).1 We shall grant 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.
Because we conclude that respondent's position was substantially justified, we also conclude that petitioners are - 6 - not entitled to an award of sanctions pursuant to section 6673 (a) (2) .
February 24, 2003. William G. Koenig, pro se. Wendy S. Harris and Glenn Thomas, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to any material 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Ta
ocket No. 6925-02L. Filed January 9, 2003. Robert Gunselman, pro se. James Brian Urie, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION RUWE, Judge: This matter is before us on respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 1211 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Respondent argues that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that his determination 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Pr
outstanding tax liabilities 2(...continued) his petition to this Court, petitioner did not challenge respondent’s actions with respect to the 1998 liability. - 6 - against petitioner and whether petitioner should be held liable for a penalty under section 6673. Rule 121 provides for summary judgment for part or all of the legal issues in controversy if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).
ien on petitioner’s property to secure petitioner’s payment of his 1994 Federal income tax liability of $3,385.56. Currently, the case is before the Court on -2- respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 121 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Petitioner responded to respondent’s motion under Rule 121(b). We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and shall impose a $5,000 penalty against petitioner. Section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal
nts in petitioners’ response are similar to the types of frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and arguments in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See, e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45. Although not altogether clear, petitioners’ response may also be raising the argument under sec. 7521(a) advanced in th
¹All section references are to the Int effect for the years in issue, and all Rul Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.e references are to the 222W - 2 - that pet~itioner must pay respondent and the amount of respondent' s costs under section 6673 (a) (2) that petitioner' s counsel, Noel W.
MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121, and to impose a penalty under section 6673.1 Respondent 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
7613-02L. Filed January 22, 2003. Miriam-Majadillas Eiselstein, pro se. Robert S. Scarbrough, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under I.R.C. section 6673.1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summar
the memorandum of 5/2/02 stating audio and stenographic recordings of Appeals cases will no longer be allowed; b) Copies of the forms 2866 to which the forms - 6 - 4340, Certificate of Assessment, are annexed for the period in dispute; c) A copy of Section 6673 of the I.R.C., showing that the Tax Court can impose sanctions of up to $25,000 when a taxpayer institutes litiga- tion before it primarily for delay or based on a frivolous position; d) A copy of the case Davis v.
for, 1997 and 1999. The parties subsequently (continued...) - 2 - the issues for decision are whether respondent abused his discretion in determining that collection action could proceed for 1997 and whether the Court should impose a penalty under section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Background All of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulated facts and the
urns) under section 6651(a)(1)2 for 1996 and 1997; (3) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662 for the years in issue; and (4) whether petitioner engaged in behavior warranting the imposition of a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time he filed the petitions, petitioner resided in Chicago, I
rguments, and requests set forth in petitioner’s response are similar to the contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See, e.g., Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45. - 11 - Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s di
as wasting the Court’s time. Petitioner’s position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless, and he has wasted the time and resources of this Court. We are convinced that petitioner instituted and maintained these proceedings primarily for delay. Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty of $25,000 pursuant to section 6673. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate decision will be entered.
guments, and requests in peti- tioner’s response are similar to the types of contentions, arguments, and requests set forth in responses by certain other taxpayers with cases in the Court to motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under sec. 6673 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in such other cases. See, e.g., Flathers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-60. - 9 - respect to the notice of determination, which we shall review for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, s
40EZ filed by Ps do not constitute valid Federal income tax returns. 3. Held, further, Ps are liable for the additions to tax at issue in the amounts determined by R, with minor adjustments. 4. Held, further, H and W are liable for penalties under sec. 6673, I.R.C., in the amounts of $25,000 and $15,000, respectively. John Parks Trowbridge and Sabrina Martin, pro sese. M. Kathryn Bellis, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HALPERN, Judge: These cases have been consolidated fo
Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. Discussion Respondent seeks summary judgment with respect to whether he may proceed to collect certain outstanding tax liabilities against petitioners and whether petitioners should be held liable for a penalty under section 6673. Rule 121 provides for summary judgment for part or all of the legal issues in controversy if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994)
ord and previously cited cases, we hold that respondent has not met his burden of production with respect to the appropriateness of imposing the section 6651(a)(2) additions to tax. Prior to trial, respondent filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) provides for a penalty whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. We have
0, 2002. Gene and Ciao Newman, pro sese. Wendy S. Harris and Karen Lynne Baker, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, as supplemented.1 Respondent 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - contends that ther
se was nothing more than an attempt to further delay the collection activities. We agree. In the petition, at trial, and on brief petitioner raised, primarily for delay, arguments and contentions that we have previously rejected, thereby causing the Court to waste its limited resources. Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty of $10,000 pursuant to section 6673. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioner will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
10764-00 and 10767-00 and a written motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in each of the cases at docket Nos.
2002. Rainer B. and Sonja D. Wagner, pro sese. Wendy S. Harris and Scott Hovey, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to any material fact with respect to this levy action, and that respondent’s determination to proceed with collection of petitioners’ 1 Unless otherwise
2002. David and Theresa Smeton, pro sese. Wendy S. Harris and Sheara L. Gelman, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special 'Trial Judge: This matter is.before the Court on respondent's.Motión For Šummary Judgment Änd To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed purstíant .to Rule 121 Respondent cóntends that there is no disptite as to any material Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to tha Internal Revenue Code, as aniended, and all Rule refereñce are to the Tax
ly 2, 2002. Harvey Doyne Perry, Jr., pro se. Wendy S. Harris and Scott A. Hovey, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to any material 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Ta
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is - 12 - warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
iled June 12, 2002. Malcolm Crow, pro se. Wendy S. Harris and Karen Lynne Baker, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to any material 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Ta
Whether we should penalize petitioners under section 6673.3 We hold we should and penalize them $1,000.
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
ereto, we consider it neither necessary or productive to remand this case to Appeals to hold a hearing. We sustain respondent’s determination as to the proposed levy as a permissible exercise of discretion. We now turn to the requested penalty under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or
Imposition of a Penalty Under Section 6673 As relevant herein, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $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 proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
l J. Yacksyzn, pro se. Wendy S. Harris and Karen Lynne Baker, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. §6673.1 As explained in detail below, we shall grant respondent’s motion. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Pro
10764-00 and 10767-00 and a.written motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in each of the cases at docket Nos.
998 Federal income tax liability (including an accuracy-related penalty and interest) of -2- approximately $15,042.55.1 Currently, the case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 121 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Petitioners responded to respondent’s motion by way of a general objection. We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and shall impose a $2,000 penalty against petitioners. Unless otherwise noted, section references are to
10764-00 and 10767-00 and a written motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in each of the cases at docket Nos.
iled October 10, 2002. Danney R. Land, pro se. Alan T. Tomsic and Stuart Murray, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, as supplemented, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued...) - 2 - dispute as to any material fact with respect to this levy action
Section 6673 Penalty As relevant herein, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $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 proceeding is • frivolous or gro
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $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. The purpose
002. Robert R. Villwock, pro se. Wendy S. Harris and Karen Lynne Baker, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under I.R.C. section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to 1 Unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references (continued...) - 2 - any ma
n actions, and collection alternatives. Discussion Respondent seeks summary judgment with respect to whether he may proceed to collect certain outstanding tax liabilities of petitioner and whether petitioner should be held liable for a penalty under section 6673. Rule 121 provides for summary judgment to be granted with respect to part or all of the legal issues in controversy if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. See Sunstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd
10001-00), and respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in the case at docket No.
is case, petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum. On December 11, 2001, the Court denied this motion. At trial, the Court warned petitioner that his arguments were frivolous and of the provisions of section 6673. Petitioner filed several frivolous documents with the Court. Petitioner’s position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless, and he has wasted the time and resources of this Court. Accordingly, w
Imposition of a Penalty Under Section 6673 As relevant herein, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $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 proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
r petitioner had unreported income for services rendered as an osteopathic physician or as a homeopathic - 2 - physician, whether the Court has jurisdiction to make that determination where the income was reported by a limited liability company (LLC) that filed a petition in bankruptcy subsequent to the years in issue, and whether a penalty under section 6673 should be awarded to the United States.
y-related penalties and -2- interest) of approximately $2,874.95 for 1993, $7,557.50 for 1995, and $8,403.70 for 1996.1 Currently, the case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 121 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Petitioner responded to respondent’s motion under Rule 121(b).2 We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and shall impose a $3,500 penalty against petitioner. Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the applicabl
ember 27, 2002. Christopher Kiley, pro se. Rollin G. Thorley and Robin Ferguson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to any material 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Ta
1997 Federal income tax liability (including an accuracy-related penalty and interest) of -2- approximately $630.77.1 Currently, the case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 121 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Petitioners responded to respondent’s motion by way of a general objection. We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and shall impose a $2,000 penalty against petitioners. Unless otherwise noted, section references are to t
Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s motion for sanctions and require the Wards to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673 in the amount of $25,000.
10765-00), respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prose- cution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in the case at docket No.
f petitioner raised frivolous arguments and contentions which we conclude were interposed primarily for delay. These arguments and contentions were similar to those that were rejected repeatedly by State and - 8 - Federal courts, thereby causing the Court to waste its limited resources. Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty of $7,500 pursuant to section 6673. To reflect the foregoing, . Decision will be entered for respondent.
Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s motion for sanctions and require the Wards to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673 in the amount of $25,000.
x pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) cannot be sustained. See Heisey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-41. Finally, respondent has requested us to require petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty for instituting a frivolous proceeding pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty, up to $25,000, whenever it appears that proceedings in this Court have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for dela
MEMORANDUM OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121, and respondent’s oral motion to impose a penalty under section 6673.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued...) - 2 - to any material fact with respect to this levy action and that respondent’s determination to proceed with collection of petitioners’ outstanding tax
MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and to impose a penalty - 2 - under section 6673.1 Because respondent has presented matters outside of the pleadings, we treat respondent’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.
002. John Thurman Horejs, pro se. Anne W. Durning and Sheara L. Gelman, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules
& Elaine Sheryl Horejs, pro sese. Anne W. Durning and Sheara L. Gelman, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, as amended, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules o
On September 1, 2000, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to impose sanctions pursuant to section 6673 (respondent’s first motion).
ained respondent’s determination of deficiencies in income taxes and additions to tax for the taxable years 1981 and 1982; also, acting sua sponte, the Court awarded damages to the United States against petitioner in the amount of $5,000 pursuant to section 6673. In taking this action, the Court stated, in part, as follows: The deficiencies were attributable to unreported wages and pension receipts. * * * In his amended petition * * * petitioner alleged that respondent lacks jurisdiction over hi
ction 6662 for 1996 and an addition to tax of $35,148 under section 6651(a)(1) for 1997. Petitioner declined to present any evidence at trial, and - 2 - respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute and for a Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673 (motion to dismiss). Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background Resp
9700-00), respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in the case at docket No.
Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s motion for sanctions and require the Wards to pay a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673 in the amount of $25,000.
Notice of Federal Tax Lien filed October 8, 1998, pertaining to a frivolous return penalty imposed against petitioners pursuant to section 6702; and (2) respondent’s - 2 - motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to impose a penalty under section 6673.1 Because respondent has presented matters outside of the pleadings, we shall treat the motion to dismiss as respondent’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.
t 7, 2002. Willie R. Davidson, pro se. Wendy S. Harris and Scott Hovey, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is no dispute as to 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules
10001-00), and respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in the case at docket No.
We hold that she may not. 2. Whether respondent’s determination to proceed with collection with respect to petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 tax years was an abuse of discretion. We hold that it was not. 3. Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. We hold that she is, in the amount of $2,500. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the applicable years. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in Charlo
25, 2002. William Wilson, pro se. Alan J. Tomsic and Robin M. Ferguson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673, as supplemented, filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 Respondent contends that there is 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references (continued...) - 2 - no di
to tax for failure to file a tax return pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); (3) whether Mr. and Mrs. Norton are liable for accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a); and (4) whether Mr. and Mrs. Norton are liable for penalties imposed under section 6673. - 3 - FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners Steve M. Norton (Mr. Norton) and Khristine Norton (Mrs. N
10001-00), and respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in the case at docket No.
10764-00 and 10767-00 and a written motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in each of the cases at docket Nos.
9999-00 and 10000-00 and a written motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in each of the cases at docket Nos.
Respondent also contends that petitioner intentionally and unnecessarily delayed and protracted this proceeding and that a section 6673 penalty of $25,000 should be imposed upon petitioner.
1987) (trial court’s finding that taxpayer should have known that claim was frivolous allows for section 6673 penalty); Booker v.
to tax for failure to file a tax return pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); (3) whether Mr. and Mrs. Norton are liable for accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a); and (4) whether Mr. and Mrs. Norton are liable for penalties imposed under section 6673. - 3 - FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners Steve M. Norton (Mr. Norton) and Khristine Norton (Mrs. N
Motion To Dismiss and October 16, 2000, Trial On October 2, 2000, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure properly to prosecute and for a penalty under section 6673 with regard to petitioner’s case.
At trial, respondent moved for penalties under section 6673, sanctions and costs awarded by courts.
The issues for decision are whether petitioners failed to report income for 1994 and are liable for a section 6651 addition to - 2 - tax, a section 6662 accuracy-related penalty, and a section 6673 penalty for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments.
ting forth a detailed response to petitioner’s frivolous contentions. Petitioner did not file a posttrial answering brief, and respondent elected not to file an additional brief. Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for an award of sanctions under section 6673. 1. Deficiency Determination Petitioner’s wages, interest income, and distributions from his individual retirement account are taxable as income. See, e.g., United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943 (3d Cir. 1990) (“Every court which has
pinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE DINAN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and to Impose a Penalty under I.R.C. Section 6673, filed November 2, 2000. A hearing was held on the motion. As explained below, we shall grant respondent’s motion. Respondent determined a deficiency of $555,943 in petitioners’ Federal income tax for the year 1996 and a penalty of
At trial, respondent moved for penalties under section 6673, sanctions and costs awarded by courts.
at issue; 4) whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations pursuant to section 6662 for each of the years at issue; and 5) whether the Castros are liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Background The parties have stipulated some of the facts, which are incorporated into our findings by this reference. At the time the petitions in these cases were filed, the Castros resided, and the CFT and the CCJT
The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they - 29 - file returns and litigate.
02, 222 (1992). Petitioner's situation does not fall within any of these statutory exceptions. Respondent, therefore, is sustained on the sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654 additions to tax. Finally, respondent moved for a penalty against petitioner under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United States, in an amount not to exceed $25,000, whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by such taxpayer primarily
1989-56, a case involving substantially the same type of determination as was made for petitioner herein, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected “as patently frivolous the * * * [taxpayers’] contention that the Tax Court - 8 - had no authority to impute * * * [an entity’s] income to * * * [the taxpayers].” In addition to section 6673 penalties imposed by the Tax Court, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Sandvall v.
We informed petitioners in the September 19, 2000 Order that “In the event that petitioners continue to advance frivolous and/or groundless contentions, the Court will be inclined to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on petitioners under section 6673.” On October 2, 2000, petitioners filed a motion for clarifi- cation of the September 19, 2000 Order (petitioners’ motion for clarification).
- 2 - dismissed this case for lack of prosecution as to the deficiencies in petitioners' income taxes, we have remaining for decision whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalties and whether to impose a penalty under section 6673 on petitioners.
Motion To Dismiss and October 16, 2000, Trial On October 2, 2000, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure properly to prosecute and for a penalty under section 6673 with regard to petitioner’s case.
at issue; 4) whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations pursuant to section 6662 for each of the years at issue; and 5) whether the Castros are liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Background The parties have stipulated some of the facts, which are incorporated into our findings by this reference. At the time the petitions in these cases were filed, the Castros resided, and the CFT and the CCJT
the parties’ concessions, the only remaining issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty for taxable year 1995 under section 6662(a); and (2) whether petitioners are liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. We incorporate the stipulation of facts into these findings by this reference. Petitioners resided in Shadow Hills, California, at the time the petition in docket N
Accordingly, we warn petitioner that pursuant to section 6673 we are authorized to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 on taxpayers who institute proceedings merely for delay or who set forth in a proceeding a position that is frivolous or groundless.
5 and 1996 taxable years; (5) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for the underpayment of taxes for the 1994 and 1995 taxable years; and (6) whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States under section 6673. For clarity and simplicity, we have combined the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, at the time he filed his petitio
y services, the sale of animals, and oil and gas royalties in the years in issue; (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for fraud under sections 6653(b)(1)2 and 6651(f); (3) whether petitioner is liable for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654(a); and (4) whether petitioner is liable for the imposition of a penalty under section 6673 for taking a frivolous and groundless position in these proceedings.
is. 4. Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file a return and failure to pay estimated tax for 1994, 1995, and 1996 and failure to pay tax for 1996. We hold that he is. 5. Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. We hold that he is in the amount of $3,500. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background Some of the facts are stipulat
6654 1990 $63,547 $15,887 $4,185 1991 65,221 16,305 3,749 1992 25,949 6,487 1,133 1993 22,724 5,681 952 1994 12,113 3,028 623 1995 10,065 2,516 550 After concessions,1 the sole issue for our decision is whether we should grant respondent’s motion to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673.2 We combine our findings of fact with our opinion.
Section 6673(a)(1) Section 6673 provides for the imposition of penalties and the awarding of costs.
Respondent moved for a penalty pursuant to section 6673, which provides that the Court may impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000.
dition to tax. The Court must decide: (1) Whether wages - 2 - received by petitioner are subject to Federal income tax in excess of amounts paid to Social Security and medicare, and (2) whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States under section 6673. (Because respondent conceded that the return was filed timely, we do not have jurisdiction over the section 6654 addition to tax. Section 6665(b)(2); Fujita v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-164). Some of the facts in this case have been
Section 6673(a)(1) Section 6673 provides for the imposition of penalties and the awarding of costs.
The sole matter for decision is respondent’s motion for imposition of a section 6673 penalty.
, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 3 - This argument is frivolous. See secs. 61, 72, 402(a); see also Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-1122 (1983). Respondent asks that a penalty be imposed under section 6673. That section provides, inter alia, that if it appears to this Court that “the taxpayer’s position * * * is frivolous or groundless”, the Court may impose a penalty in an amount not in excess of $25,000. Sec. 6673(a). This Court cautioned
88-249, affd. per curiam 883 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1989). The Court, therefore, on its own motion, grants summary judgment with respect to these issues and sustains respondent’s determinations. In many of the cases cited above we awarded penalties under section 6673. Section 6673(a) provides that, if the Court determines that proceedings are maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or the position of a taxpayer is groundless or frivolous, the Court may award penalties to the United States in an
mpensation for his labor; (2) whether payments made to petitioner for his labor should be included in petitioner’s taxable income; (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failing to timely file Federal income tax returns and for failing to pay estimated taxes; and (4) whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States under section 6673.1 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
That warning to petitioner was made in the context of notice to him about the provisions of section 6673, discussed further below.
d a valid return, and if so, whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6662;. (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); and (4) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Background During 1991, petitioner was employed as a veterinarian by Stephen W. Williams, P.C., an S corporation (Williams P.C.). Petitioner received extensions of time for filing his 1991 income tax return until October 15, 1992. On Oc
455.00 1,821.00 1369-00 574 29.00 115.00 1370-00 114,727 5,736.00 22,945.00 1371-00 4,453 223.00 891.00 Background These cases are before the Court on respondent’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to impose a penalty - 3 - under section 6673. In docket Nos. 1366-00 through 1371-00, respondent filed a supplement to the motion to dismiss wherein respondent noted that the respective dockets were related to the lead docket No. 18510-99. A hearing was held with respect to the moti
s with respondent were delayed. On the other hand, despite the lack of any merit in petitioner's arguments, respondent failed to make a motion to dismiss this case and proceeded to trial. Respondent also failed to make any motion for a penalty under section 6673. - 5 - We will impose a section 6673 penalty on petitioner in the amount of $750. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.
ners are liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6654 for failing to make estimated tax payments for 1994 and 1995. See Rule 142(a). By motion made at the conclusion of trial, respondent requested that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A p
Sua sponte, we shall require petitioners to pay a penalty of $1,000 under section 6673, to be added to the $10,000 penalty already decided in the Court's prior opinion in this case.
lty and have therefore failed to meet their burden. Accordingly, the additions to tax and the accuracy-related penalty are sustained.4 By motion made at the conclusion of trial, respondent requested the Court to impose a penalty on petitioners under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or if the taxpayer's
- 7 - faith. Accordingly, we hold petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty. The Court hereby puts petitioners on notice that in any futuré proceedings instituted by them primarily for delay, or where.their position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, they.will be subject to a penalty not in excess of $25,000 pursuant to section 6673. To reflect the.foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent. •
Previously, on its own motion, this Court has awarded damages to the United States under section 6673 where the taxpayer advanced frivolous and groundless contentions similar to those advanced by petitioner.
Previously, on its own motion, this Court has awarded damages to the United States under section 6673 where the taxpayer advanced frivolous and groundless contentions similar to 1 In the notices of deficiency for each of the years at issue, respondent determined that petitioners were liable for civil fraud penalties pursuant to sec.
le cause and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1). By motion made at the conclusion of trial, respondent requested that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A p
iled to address it on brief. Therefore, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6654. See Rule 142(a). By motion made at the conclusion of trial, respondent requested that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A p
- 3 - (4) Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 for maintaining a frivolous or groundless position in these proceedings.
988 2,055 1992 14,907 3,727 650 1993 9,485 2,371 397 On June 21, 1999, the Court granted without objection respondent's oral motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute properly. The sole remaining issue is respondent's Motion To Impose Damages Under I.R.C. Section 6673.1 The Court grants respondent's motion in that we require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States in the amount of $25,000. We combine our findings of fact with our opinion. Background At the time the petition in this cas
- 14 - For all issues in this case except the penalty under section 6673, respondent's determination is presumed correct, and petitioners bear the burden of proving it wrong.
y respondent affect petitioner’s liability for the deficiencies and penalties at issue; (6) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1991 and 1992; and (7) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. - 3 - FINDINGS OF FACT The parties filed a stipulation of facts with attached exhibits. The facts reflected therein are so found, and, by this reference, are incorporated herein. Petitioner is a certified public accountant. He resided i
1987) (apparent finding that petitioner should have known that claim was frivolous allows for section 6673 penalty).
r each of the years in issue; (3) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax for failure to pay estimated Federal income tax under section 6654(a) for each of the years in issue; and (4) whether petitioners are liable for a penalty under section 6673. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. - 3 - FINDINGS OF FACT Some of t
At the hearing on respondent's motion for summary judgment, respondent, under section 6673, orally moved for penalties against petitioner on the grounds that 1 Petitioner's failure to respond to respondent's requested admissions resulted in the admissions’ being deemed admitted.
e of P’s liability for the fraud addition to tax under sec. 6651(f), I.R.C. 1986, for 1993. 1. Held: P is liable for an addition to tax for fraud under sec. 6651(f), I.R.C. 1986, for 1993. 2. Held, further, P is liable for a penalty of $10,000 under sec. 6673, I.R.C. 1986. Gaylon L. Harrell, pro se. -2- James A. Kutten, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHABOT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in Federal individual income tax and additions to tax under sections 665
elf-employment taxes on income received in 1987 and 1989.2 We hold that he is. (3) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for 1987 and 1989 under section 6651(a)(1). We hold that he is. (4) Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. We hold that he is not. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. 1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
In its Order dated January 9, 1998, denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss this case, the Court cautioned petitioners that if they “continue to advance frivolous and/or groundless contentions, the Court will be inclined to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on petitioners under section 6673.” Pursuant to section 6673, we will impose a penalty on petitioners in the amount of $10,000.4 To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued.
fraud penalty for the years in issue should be sustained by the entry of a default judgment against petitioner pursuant to Rule 123(a). Finally, we consider whether petitioner has engaged in behavior that warrants imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to - 9 - require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for
er is liable for the additions to tax determined by respondent under section 6651(a)(1); (3) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax determined by respondent under section 6654; and (4) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. We hold for respondent on all issues. We also hold that petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 and require him to pay to the United States a penalty of $5,000. Unless otherwise stated, section references are to the Interna
No. 19412-97. Filed November 13, 1998. David White, pro se. Melanie R. Urban, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment under Rule 1211 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Respondent determined a deficiency of $26,806, an addition to tax of $6,702 under section 1 All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect
As to respondent's motion for imposition of a penalty under section 6673, section 6673(a)(1) allows this Court to award a penalty not in excess of $25,000 when proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay, or where the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for a change in the law.
Thus, the Court hereby imposes upon petitioner a penalty in each case, under section 6673, in the amount of $250 in favor of the United States.
old that petitioners are liable for the additions to tax under section 6654 and penalties under section 6662(b). See Rule 142(a). Finally, we consider whether petitioners have engaged in behavior that warrants the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to penalize a taxpayer for taking frivolous positions or instituting proceedings primarily for delay. Petitioners received a warning that respondent would move for a penalty under section 6673. P
AN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed pursuant to Rule 40. The motion also seeks an award of a penalty against petitioners under section 6673. Petitioners resided in Fort Worth, Texas, at the time the petition in this case was filed. Respondent's Notices of Deficiency On September 29, 1997, respondent mailed petitioners respective notices of deficiency determining the following
As to respondent's motion for imposition of sanctions under section 6673, section 6673(a)(1) allows this Court to award a penalty not in excess of $25,000 when proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay, or where the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless.
Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's motion for an award of a penalty under section 6673 and require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States in the amount of $1,000, although we advise petitioner that the - 5 - amount of the penalty may be greater if he persists with his tax protester position in the future.
this case. Petitioner and Mrs. Simmons did nothing to prosecute the bankruptcy case, and that case was dismissed for failure to file a plan and failure to file tax returns. On March 6, 1995, respondent filed a motion for an award of a penalty under section 6673. On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed a document entitled "Administration Law Demand for Dismissal of Notice of Deficiency by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue". - 5 - In response, the Court issued an Order, dated March 30, 1995, in
1995), this Court observed that "The mere fact that not every one of petitioner's arguments is frivolous or groundless does not eliminate the applicability of section 6673." See also Granado v.
Respondent also filed a motion for a penalty under section 6673, asserting that petitioner had instituted this proceeding primarily for the purpose of delay, - 5 - and that petitioner's position is frivolous or groundless.
Whether a penalty, pursuant to section 6673, should be imposed upon petitioners.
available to the public through various sources. Therefore, we hold that petitioners are liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for 1991. We will next determine whether this Court should impose sanctions upon petitioners pursuant to section 6673. Whenever it appears to this Court that the taxpayer's position in a proceeding before it is frivolous or groundless the Court, in its discretion, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000. S
t and presented no evidence concerning these additions to tax. Accordingly, we hold for respondent with respect to the additions to tax. Rule 142(a). As a final matter, we consider whether this Court should award a penalty to the United States under section 6673. Section 6673 grants this Court discretion to award the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000 at the expense of a taxpayer who, in the opinion of this Court, maintains a proceeding primarily for delay or adopts a position in such
the authority of respondent and this Court to deal with the subject matter of this proceeding. On the same date, based on the aforementioned document, respondent's Appeals officer warned petitioner that she might be subject to penalties pursuant to section 6673. On July 10, 1996, respondent's counsel served discovery on petitioner, including a request for production of documents and other related information and interrogatories. Petitioner did not produce the requested documents and did not ans
ome tax [return]." We reject petitioner's contention and hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax. Finally, we consider whether petitioner has engaged in behavior that warrants the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to penalize a taxpayer for taking frivolous positions or instituting proceedings primarily for delay. At the outset of the trial, we warned petitioner that he would be subject to a penalty if he
-- 22 -- impose a penalty against petitioner under section 6673 in the amount of $7,500.
for additions to tax for failure to make estimated tax payments. We hold that they are liable to the extent provided below. 6. Whether petitioners have asserted frivolous and groundless arguments that warrant the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673. We hold that a penalty is not warranted. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time their joint petition was filed, petitioners' mailing address was in Kernersville, North Carolina. During the y
income credit; (6) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file an income tax return; (7) whether petitioner overpaid her income tax; and (8) whether petitioner should be liable for a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT None of the facts have been stipulated. Petitioner Francis Z. Mischel (petitioner) resided in St. Johns, Arizona, at the time that her petition was filed with the Court. A. Petitioner and Her Family Petitioner was marri
We warned petitioner that the Court could impose sanctions, pursuant to section 6673, if the Court found that a taxpayer's position in a proceeding was maintained for delay or was frivolous or groundless.
Although respondent has not requested a penalty under section 6673, this Court is authorized to impose such a penalty in cases where the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless or the proceeding was instituted or maintained primarily for delay.
775 371 - 2 - Petitioner resided in Basehor, Kansas, when he filed his petition in this case. This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 120(a),1 and motion for imposition of sanctions under section 6673. A judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where the pleadings raise no genuine issue of material fact. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 408 (1984); Brayton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-664, affd. without published opinion 92
l Judge's opinion, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and respondent's Motion to Award Damages pursuant to section 6673. Respondent determined a deficiency in and additions to petitioners' Federal income tax, with increased interest, as follows: Increased Interest Additions to Tax under Sections under Section Year Deficiency 6653(a)(1) 6653(a)(2) 6661 6621
the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge: This case is before us on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure To State A Claim and To Impose A Penalty Under Section 6673. Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner Joel L. Boyce: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec.6654(a) 1991 $47,204 $11,801 $2,493 1992 35,173 8,793 1,536 1993 49,278
e. 3 Respondent made the concession in a memorandum brief for respondent (respondent's memorandum brief) filed at the Court's request after the Court held a hearing on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for damages under sec. 6673 (respondent's motion). The Court requested respondent to file that memorandum brief in order to respond to the allegation in petitioner's amended petition that the Form 1099 for 1991 that was issued to petitioner by Codega & Fricke in the a
s no justiciable facts in support of any error as required by Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss will be granted, and decision will be entered for respondent. Next, on the Court's own motion, we impose a penalty under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for - 7 - delay, or the taxpayer's position in such proceedi
oners are each liable for additions to tax under section 6654 for the failure to pay estimated tax for 1990, 1991, and 1992. We hold they are. (5) Whether a penalty for maintaining a frivolous position should be imposed against each petitioner under section 6673. We hold it should be with respect to petitioner but not as to Carolyn Webb. FINDINGS OF FACT A few of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated into our findings
were liable for the addition to tax under section 6659 due to a valuation overstatement; (4) the taxpayers were liable for the increased rate of interest under section 6621(c) due to an underpayment of tax in excess of $1,000 attributable to one or more enumerated “tax motivated transactions”; and (5) the taxpayers were liable for a penalty under section 6673 as a result of advancing frivolous and groundless arguments.
Code section 6673 has absolutely no legislative implementing regulation and is without the force and effect of law. 22. Code section 6214 limits the jurisdiction of Tax Court to redetermining g deficiency when g retyrn ip deficient. 23. By law, Tax Court has no authority to decide matters of law or Constitutional issues. 24. The deficiency notices are n
the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge: This case is before us on respondent's Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim and to Impose a Penalty Under Section 6673. Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to tax as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654(a) 1989 $2,504 $626 $168 1990 9,268 2,317 613 1991 7,136 1,784 410 1992 8
Section 6673 Sanctions At trial respondent moved for sanctions under section 6673 against petitioner on the grounds that she had instituted and maintained the proceedings primarily for delay and that her positions were frivolous and groundless. Section 6673(a)(1) provides that a penalty not in excess of $25,000 may be awarded "Whenever it appears t
oners are each liable for additions to tax under section 6654 for the failure to pay estimated tax for 1990, 1991, and 1992. We hold they are. (5) Whether a penalty for maintaining a frivolous position should be imposed against each petitioner under section 6673. We hold it should be with respect to petitioner but not as to Carolyn Webb. FINDINGS OF FACT A few of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated into our findings
ROFF, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed pursuant to Rule 40. Respondent further moved for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to section 6673. Petitioner resided in Los Alamitos, California, at the time the petition was filed in this case. Respondent by a notice of deficiency dated March 13, 1995, determined deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income taxes
to tax pursuant to section 6654 for failing to make estimated Federal income tax payments. We hold that petitioner is liable. 4. Whether petitioner has asserted frivolous and groundless arguments that warrant the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673. We hold that petitioner has asserted frivolous and groundless arguments, and the Court shall impose a penalty. FINDINGS OF FACT The parties have stipulated all relevant facts, and these facts are so found. 1Unless otherwise indicated, a
omply therewith, the Court would be inclined to grant respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, enter a decision - 6 - against petitioner in the amounts set forth in the notice of deficiency, and consider imposing a penalty against petitioner under section 6673. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was continued for further hearing to August 16, 1995, in Washington, D.C. On August 8, 1995, petitioner filed a second amended petition which in large part repeats and expands upon the arguments f
Served 10/01/24 2 [*2] penalty under section 6673, and petitioner’s Motion to Restrain Assessment or Collection or to Order Refund of Amount Collected (Motion to Restrain).
Further, “[t]he purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.” Takaba v.
The remaining issues for decision are whether petitioner (1) has unreported income of $58,470 for 2018 and (2) is liable for a section 6673 penalty.
Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the issues for decision are whether (1) petitioners failed to report wages of $309,986 for the 2018 tax year, (2) petitioners are liable for an accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a), and (3) a section 6673 penalty is appropriate.
primarily for delay, [or] (B) the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.” The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste of judicial and IRS resources.
6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty, not in excess of $25,000, “[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court that--(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained * * * primarily for delay, [or] (B) the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.” The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste of judicial and IRS re- sources.
Section 6673 Penalty In view of the fact that the Court has previously sanctioned petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), see supra note 5, and respondent warned in his pretrial memorandum that he would seek a section 6673 penalty if petitioner advanced any frivolous arguments, we consider whether such a penalty is also appropriate in this case. Secti
2015-10, at *9 (rejecting as frivolous the taxpayer’s argument that the notice of deficiency was invalid because it was “not signed by an authorized person” and imposing a penalty under - 16 - [*16] section 6673), aff’d, 664 F.
t that proceedings before us "have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerprimarily for delay". The arguments petitioner advances on its motion are frivolous, and this Court would therefore bejustified in sanctioning it. We decline to impose a sec. 6673 penalty; however, we warn petitioner to refrain from advancing frivolous arguments in any future filings it may make in this Court, as they may subject it to future penalties. - 8 - [*8] II. Statutory Framework Section 6321 imposes a lien i
We did not impose this penalty on petitioners in Wells v. Commissioner, at *9, but cautioned them that ifthey persisted in making these or similar arguments in the future, the Court was likely to impose penalties ofup to $25,000 under section 6673. They then had over nine months to reconsider their position in this case: We filed our opi
Frivolous Position Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of$25,000 "[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayerhas instituted or maintained a proceeding "primarily for delay" or has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless." The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste ofjudicial resources.
Hayes' attention to section 6673, which authorizes us to impose a penalty ofup to $25,000 where, among other things, a taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless.
petitioner's Federal income tax liabilities for 2009 and 2010. Representing that he will abate the 2010 liability, respondent has moved for summaryjudgment with respect to the collection action for 2009 and asked the Court to impose a penalty under section 6673. Petitioner has filed a cross-motion for summaryjudgment in which he contends that the notice ofdeficiency for 2009 was "not issued by an authorized delegate ofthe Secretary." We will grant respondent's motion with respect to the 2009 co
d section 6651(a)(2) of$390.¹ ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue (continued...) SERVED Jun 13 2019 -2- [*2] After concessions,2 the issues for decision are whether petitioner: (1) has unreported self-employment income, (2) is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), and (3) is liable for a section 6673 penalty.
Section 6673 Penalty Finally, we warned petitioner at trial that section 6673 authorizes the Court to impose a penalty ofup to $25,000 for frivolous and groundless arguments or whenever it appears to the Court that "proceedings before * * * [us] have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerprimarily for delay". Sec. 6673(a)(1)(A). Notwithstand
We did not find in the record that petitioners have made these or similar frivolous claims in the Court before or that they have been previously forewarned. Thus we will not impose one here, nor does respondent seek a section 6673 penalty in this case. However, we caution petitioners that future advancement ofthese or similar arguments a
Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of$25,000 "[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayerhas instituted or maintained a proceeding "primarily for delay" or has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless." The purpose ofsection 6673 is to compel taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste ofjudicial resources.
any defects, choosing instead to make the frivolous arguments we rejected above.2 We therefore sustain respondent's determination to proceed with collection against petitioner. Decision will be entered for respondent. 2 We also warn petitioner that sec. 6673 authorizes the Court to impose a penalty ofup to $25,000 for frivolous and groundless arguments or whenever it appears to the Court that "proceedings before * * * [us] have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerprimarily for delay".
Section 6673 Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayerto pay a penalty to the United States in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that the taxpayer instituted or maintained the proceeding primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. Petitioner was
- 14 - [*14] In the light ofthe foregoing, An appropriate order and order ofdismissal will be entered.
nce 4 Petitioner acknowledges that "wages" are taxable but argues that the term does not encompass the compensation he received from his employers. This position has been previously rejected by this Court as baseless and subject to the imposition ofsec. 6673 penalties. See Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, , __ F. App'x __, 2016 WL 5800492 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016); Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-232, M, 540 F. App'x 924 (11th Cir. 2013). - 10 - [*10] supporting this contention
Sanction Under Section 6673 Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayerto pay a penalty to the United States in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that the taxpayer instituted or maintained the proceeding - 12 - [*12] primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
The Court imposed a $3,000 penalty under section 6673, noting that Hyde had been warned at trial but had ignored the warning.
settled the tax liability under the Uniform Commercial Code and (2) that a payment was made by writing "accepted for value" on a payment voucher. We also warned Mr. Stanley that any similar arguments in the future may subject him to a penalty under section 6673. The Court's Order and Decision was affirmed by the Court ofAppeals for the Eighth Circuit. Stanley v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 5096-10L (Nov. 11, 2011) (order and decision), aff'd per order, No. 1914-12 (8th Cir. Oct. 15, 2012). - 4
He may have avoided a penalty not to exceed $25,000 under section 6673 for commencing or maintaining this action primarily for delay.
settled the tax liability under the Uniform Commercial Code and (2) that a payment was made by writing "accepted for value" on a payment voucher. We also warned Mr. Stanley that any similar arguments in the future may subject him to a penalty under section 6673. The Court's Order and Decision was affirmed by the Court ofAppeals for the Eighth Circuit. Stanley v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 5096-10L (Nov. 11, 2011) (order and decision), aff'd per order, No. 1914-12 (8th Cir. Oct. 15, 2012). - 4
After a concession by respondent, described below, the issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner is liable for the deficiency; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2); and (3) whetherthe Court should grant the oral motion of respondent's attorney to impose a penalty under section 6673 on petitioner for instituting these proceedings primarily for delay or for asserting frivolous or groundless positions.
The Court imposed a $3,000 penalty under section 6673, noting that Hyde had been warned at trial but had ignored the warning.
s arguments in other cases before the Court. See, e.g., Green v. Commissioner, 608 F. App'x 671 (10th Cir. 2015). The Court has previously warned petitioner that ifhe continued to assert frivolous arguments, - 43 - [*43] the Court would impose the section 6673 penalty. See id. This factor weighs against petitioner. E. Conclusion Taking the entire record into account, the Court concludes that petitioner's failure to file timely tax returns for 2001, 2003, and 2004 was fraudulent. Although petitio
The Court imposed a $3,000 penalty under section 6673, noting that Hyde had been warned at trial but had ignored the warning.
some merit. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Consequently, we sustain respondent's determination.3 To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent. 3Respondent has not moved for an additional penalty under sec. 6673, which provides penalties for taking a frivolous or groundless position before the Court, and we will not impose one here. Nevertheless, petitioner is warned that should he take such positions in future cases it is likely that a sec. 6673 pe
s reported on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, for 2010; (2) whether alternativelypetitioners may deduct any ofthe claimed Schedule C expenses on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, in excess ofthe amount respondent allowed; (3) whether petitioners are liable for an accuracy- related penalty for 2010; and (4) whetherthe Court should impose a section 6673 2The petition was sent to the Clerk ofthe Tax Court via the U.S.
he determinations. Petitioner appeared at trial but did not testify or proffer any evidence. He did submit a motion to impose sanctions on respondent's counsel, -6- [*6] which we denied. Respondent's counsel made an oral motion for sanctions under section 6673. OPINION I. (cid:16)042 StatutoryFramework Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor ofthe United States on all property and rights to property ofa taxpayer liable for tax when a demand for payment ofthe tax has been made and the taxpayer fails
r trespass" arguments were frivolous. On May 20, 2014, in an order denying petitioners' motion for recon- sideration, the Court again warned them that, "ifthey continue to assert these same frivolous arp,uments, the Court may impose sanctions" under section 6673. On December 2, 2014, in ordering petitioners to respond to the instant motion for I summaryjudgment, we recountedthe history oftheir delay tactics and warned as follows: "Petitioners are again advised that persistence with groundless an
IIL Section 6673 Penalty r As relevant, section 6673(a)(1) provides that this Court may require a taxpayerto pay a penalty not in excess of$25,000 whenever it appears that the proceedings were instituted or niaintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless. - 11 - [*11] A taxpayer's position is
Relatedly, section 6673 allows the Court to impose sanctions when a taxpayer continues to advance frivolous positions.
MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, J_u_dge: The issues for decision are whetherpetitioner is liable for income tax deficiencies relating to 2008, 2009, and 2010 (years in issue); SERVED FEB 1 2 2014 -2- [*2] additions to tax pursuantto sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654; and a section 6673 penalty.' FINDINGS OF FACT In 2008, 2009, and 2010 petitioner received wages from Republic Services of$57,519, $58,593, and $58,479, respectively.
5 The Commissioner also urges us to sanction Macdonald under section 6673 for her history offrivolousness.
file a return and is liable for additions to tax; (2) whetherpetitionerhad taxable income from three sources during 2008; (3) whether petitioner failed to make estimatedpayments oftax for 2008; and (4) whetherthe Court should impose a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT At the time his petition was filed, petitioner resided in the State of Washington. During 2008 petitionerwas retired and received retirement income of$30,574.49, ofwhich $29,956.61 was taxable. Also during 2008 petition
“The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.” Takaba v.
MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge: The issues for decision, relating to 2007, are whether petitioner is liable for a deficiency; a section 6651(f) addition to tax or, SERVED JUL 25 2013 - 2 - [*2] alternatively, a section 6663(a) penalty; sections 6651(a)(2) and 6654(a) additions to tax; and a section 6673 penalty.1 FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner did not file a 2006 Federal income tax return.
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
tax under sec. 6651(f) for fraudulent failure to file a return, he is liable for the fraud penalty under sec. 6663 or, alternatively, for the accuracy-relatedpenalty under sec. 6662. 3 At trial respondentmade an oral motion to impose a penalty under sec. 6673. - 3 - income, taxable income, and total tax. Petitioner attached a Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Cont
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
Section 6673 allows us to award a penalty to the United States in an amount ofup to $25,000 "[w]henever it appears to * * .* [us] that * * * proceedings * * * have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerp'rimarily for delay [or] -48- the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless". (Emphasis supplied.) Whatever the mer
ome tax returns timely for the years at issue; (4) whetherpetitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay Federal income tax timely for the years at issue; (5) whetherpetitioner is liable for additionsto tax under section 6654 for failure to make estimated tax payments for the years at issue; and (6) whether a section 6673 penalty should be imposed upon petitioner.
We also advise petitionerto consult section 6673 ofthe Internal Revenue Code, which allows us to impose a penalty not in excess of$25,000 for, among other things, a proceeding in which the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless.
h are binding. Flint called himselfas a witness. He testified that he did not earn any wages during the years in question because he was not a federal employee or an officer ofa corporation. Directly after the trial the IRS moved for penalties under section 6673. The IRS reasoned that, apart from his bankruptcy-discharge argument, Flint's arguments , were frivolous. - 9 - [*9] In his brieffiled after trial Flint argues that: (cid:16)042 It was unnecessary for him to give tax returns to the settl
That leaves only the Commissioner's suggestion that we impose an additional penalty on Crites under section 6673 for even bringing this case.
- 11 - not asked that we impose a section 6673 penalty.
not liable under section 6651(f), petitioner is liable for a fraud penalty under section 6663 or an accuracy- related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a) for tax years 2003 and 2004; and (6) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some ofthe facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Florida at the time his petitions w
Respondent has not asked that we impose a section 6673 penalty.
Section 6673 Section 6673(a)(1) gives this Court discretion to "require the taxpayerto pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of$25,000" whenever it appears that: (A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerprimarily for delay, (B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or (C
Section 6673 Penalty Under section 6673(a)(1), this Court may require a taxpayerto pay a penalty not in ekcess of$25,000 if(1) the taxpayerhas instituted or maintained a proceeding primari y for delay, or (2) the taxpayer's position is "frivolous or groundless". Petitióner acknowledges in his objection to the motion for partial summaryjudgmentthat
ome." We set this case for trial at the trial session beginning April 26, 2011, in Mobile, Alabama. Attrial we warnedpetitionerthat ifhe continued to - 8 - assert frivolous or groundless positions, this Court would consider imposing a penalty under section 6673.4 . : OPINION. I. Burden ofProof Ordinarily, the Commissioner's determinations in a notice ofdeficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayerbears the burden ofproving that the determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helverin
While a section 6673 penalty is not appropriate at this time, the Court warns petitioner that continuing to advance groundless arguments or accusations may result in penalties in the future.
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
However, because the record contains the stipulation of facts and the testimony respondent presented, the issues addressed in the stipulation will be discussed in this opinion. Deficiencies Approximately 1 month before submission of these cases, in Cole v. Commissioner, 637 F.3d at 777 (Cole cases), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh C
Section 6673 allows us to award a penalty to the United States in an amount ofup to $25,000 "[w]henever it appears to * * .* [us] that * * * proceedings * * * have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerp'rimarily for delay [or] -48- the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless". (Emphasis supplied.) Whatever the mer
Section 6673 allows us to award a penalty to the United States in an amount ofup to $25,000 "[w]henever it appears to * * .* [us] that * * * proceedings * * * have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerp'rimarily for delay [or] -48- the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless". (Emphasis supplied.) Whatever the mer
Section 6673 allows us to award a penalty to the United States in an amount ofup to $25,000 "[w]henever it appears to * * .* [us] that * * * proceedings * * * have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayerp'rimarily for delay [or] -48- the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless". (Emphasis supplied.) Whatever the mer
not liable under section 6651(f), petitioner is liable for a fraud penalty under section 6663 or an accuracy- related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a) for tax years 2003 and 2004; and (6) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some ofthe facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Florida at the time his petitions w
The Commissioner also renews his objections based on lack of foundation and hears y. All the documents presented dealt with Thompson's condominium in Hawaii, his claimed capital-loss carryover, a loan he had taken out, or deductions relating to Prairie that Thompson claimed. Thompson provided ample testimony of these topics and so the do
sec. 1001, 112 Stat. 689, and IRS Deleg. Order 1-23 (formerly IRS Deleg. Order 193, Rev. 6), Internal Revenue Manual pt. 1.2.40.22 (Nov. 8, 2000). 2. Held, further, R may proceed with collection. 3. Held, further, P is not subject to a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., but is warned that continued frivolous arguments may subject him to the sec. 6673, I.R.C., penalty in the future. Scott Grunsted, pro se. Lisa M. Oshiro and Melanie Senick, for respondent. OPINION KROUPA, Judge: This collection rev
Section 6702 (b) imposes a $5,000 penalty on any person who submits a "specified submission" that constitutes a "specified frivolous submission".. Specified submissions include requests for an administrative hearing under sections 6320 and 6330 and applications for an installment agreement under section 6159, an offer-in-compromise u
6654 2004 $17,226 $2,076 $2,215 239 2005 16,4s14 1,760 1,252 -0- 2006 11,601- 1,383 615 262 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for Federal income tax deficiencies for 2004-2006, (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under sections 6651 and 6654,1 and (3) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay or for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions.
The Sandbergs' Request for Sanctions Under Section 6673 The Sandbergs request that the Court impose sanctions under section 6673.
Section 6673 (a) (1) Penalty Section 6Ë73 (a) (1) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty not ta exceed $25 00 if the taxpayer took frivolous or groundless positions in the proceeding or instituted the proceeding primarily for delay. A taxpayer' s position is "frivolous" if it is "contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorabl
The only bona fide issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 and, if so, how much that penalty should be.
ut that she does not understand English or petitioners' finances. - 3 - (5) whether petitioners are liable for secti n 6662 (a) accuracy-related penalties for the 2001 through 2006 tax years;2 and (6) whether Mr. Licha is liable for å penaltþ under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT At the time they filed their petition with this Court, petitioners resided in California. Mr.' Licha is ä self-employed contractor who owned a construction company which served primarily as a framing subcontractor during
Respondent also seeks a penalty under section 6673.1 FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner resided in Florida at the time he filed the petition.
0 for 2004, $190.20 for 2005, and $351.20 for 2006. Fennel filed petitions with the Tax Court to redetermine the deficiencies. The Court consolidated the three,cases for trial. At the end of trial, the IRS moved for the imposition of a penalty under section 6673. OPINION 1. Deficiencies in Tax The first issue for decision is whether Fennel earned and failed to report income of $17,049.79 in 2004, $16,978.08 in 2005, and $22,655.73 in 2006. We find that he did. Fennel admitted that he received pa
The Commissioner also renews his objections based on lack of foundation and hears y. All the documents presented dealt with Thompson's condominium in Hawaii, his claimed capital-loss carryover, a loan he had taken out, or deductions relating to Prairie that Thompson claimed. Thompson provided ample testimony of these topics and so the do
6654 2004 $17,226 $2,076 $2,215 239 2005 16,4s14 1,760 1,252 -0- 2006 11,601- 1,383 615 262 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for Federal income tax deficiencies for 2004-2006, (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under sections 6651 and 6654,1 and (3) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 for instituting proceedings primarily for delay or for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions.
Respondent did not request a penalty under section 6673, and we have decided not to impose one sua sponte .
Respondent's counsel requested at trial that a penalty under section 6673 be imposed .
ntained by the taxpayer primarily for delay, (b) the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless, or (c) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies. Respondent did not request that we impose a penalty pursuant to sec. 6673, and in the exercise of our discretion we will not impose a sec. 6673 penalty on petitioner. However, we warn petitioner that if in the future he maintains groundless positions in this Court, he runs the risk that he will be sanctioned in a
esigned to accomplish anything favorable to petitioners in this proceeding; thus they appear to have been pursued primarily for delay. Smith is hereby warned that any additional proceedings brought by him in which he makes similar groundless arguments for - 18 - the same purpose may result in imposition of a penalty not in excess of $25,000 under section 6673. To reflect the foregoing, i Decision will be entered in accordance with the stipulation between Hook and respondent. I
2006-233, the Court warned petitioner that he would be subject to a sec. 6673(a) (1) penalty if he continued to raise frivolous arguments in court proceedings. After much consideration, the Court has decided not to impose a penalty in the instant case, but we explicitly admonish petitioner that he may, in the future, be subject to a penalty under sec. 6673 for any proceedings instituted or maintained primarily for delay or for any proceedings which are frivolous or groundless.
Section 6673 Delay Penalty The Commissioner has moved to impose a penalty under section 6673(a) (1), which authorizes us to impose a penalty not in excess of $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 groundle
SERVED JUN 14 2010 2 penalty under section 6673,1 and a motion to permit the levy .
We informed 8 - petitioner that other taxpayers in similar cases were subject to a section 6673 penalty .5 See, e .g ., Wolcott v .
Background Petitioner, resided in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when the petition was filed. Petitioner's Income Tax Liability for 2003 .Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 2003 . Respondent generated a Substitute for Return pursuant to section 6020(b) and, consistent with deficiency procedures , assessed the t
. The March 28, 2008, notice of deficiency disallowed petitioners',$18,402 of claimed miscellaneous deductions . A trial was held on June 16, 2009, in Los Angeles, California . On January 8, 2010, respondent filed a motion to impose a penalty under section 6673 . On February 12, 2010, at the Court's direction, petitioners filed a response t o respondent's motion . I . Burden of Proof As a general rule, the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears
Respondent has moved for a penalty under section 6673 on, .,, the grounds=that petitioner instituted these proceedings 'primarily for delay and/or because petitioner's position is frivolous or groundless .
Frivolous Argument Penalty Under Section 6673 Section 6673(a) (1) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty of up: to $25,000 on petitioner if it appears that petitioner's position in this proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
Respondent did not request a penalty under section 6673, and we have decided not to impose one sua sponte .
We have imposed the section 6673 penalty for taking a frivolous position upon taxpayers who have claimed that they are not subject.
Burke a penalty under -section 6673'(a)'(1) which authorizes the Tax Court to require a,taxpayer to`pay to the United States_a ..penalty not '5Mr .
Respondent has not asked that we impos e a section 6673 penalty .
to claim the certified mailing, according to the envelope returned by the postal service . " Petitioner filed a timely petition contesting the notice of determination. Respondent filed two motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 . The Court denied both motions because a relevant fact, whether petitioner had received the notices of deficiency, was in dispute . Subsequently, the Court conducted a trial at which petitioner testified . During the trial petitioner, wh
It is before the Court on (1) respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 against petitioner, and (2) .the Court's order to show cause directed at petitioner's counsel requiring him to explain why counsel should not be required under SERVED Jul 21 2009 a(cid:127) - 2 - section 6673(a)(2) to pay personally any excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of his conduct in this case
A penalty under section 6673 in an amount not to exceed $25 , 000 would be justified on this record .
L . Filed August 10, 2009 . Byron Reynolds, pro se . Michael Thomas Garrett , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge : This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment under Rule 1211 and to impose penalties under section 6673 . The petition was filed. in 'All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal- Revenue Code, as amended, unless otherwise indicated . { - 2 - response to respondent
-11- Section 6673 Penalty Respondent has moved for a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) . Section 6673(a)(1) provides thatthis Court may require the taxpayer to pay a penalty not infexcess of $25,000 whenever it appears to this Court that : (a)'The proceedings were instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay ; (b) the taxpayer's position
by petitioner,' the issues for decision are : 2 (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a loss deduction of $1,999 for "Hotel Connect" for taxable year 2002 ; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6662 penalty in the amounts of $3 and $285 for taxable years 2001 and 3 2002, respectively and (3) whether the Court should sua sponte impose a section 6673 penalty .
In light of petitioner's tax-protes er arguments, made before respondent's Appeals Office and h rein, we also impose a penalty under section 6673 on petitioner in the amount of $2,500 .
s suspended pursuant to section 6330(e)(1); (2) whether respondent may proceed with collection by levy of petitioner’s tax liabilities for the 1990, 1991, and 1992 taxable years; and (3) whether to grant respondent’s motion to impose a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated by the parties. The stipulations, with accompanying exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed petitioner resided in Jacksonville, Flor
ent tax in the notice of deficiency and did not pursue this issue at trial, we deem it conceded . - 3 - Respondent filed a motion to amend his answer to assert the fraud penalty under section 66632 and made an oral motion to impose sanctions under section 6673 . Respondent has conceded these issues ; therefore, we will deny both motions as moot . FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts have been stipulated and are so found . The stipulated facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein by this
es; (5) whether the Swansons are entitled to deductions in excess of those allowed by respondent; (6) whether the Swansons are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a); and (7) whether the Swansons are liable for a penalty under section 6673. The terms “trust”, “trustee”, “settlor”, and other related terms are used in this opinion for convenience and are not intended to be conclusive as to the characterization of FSH Services for Federal tax purposes. FINDINGS OF FACT Some o
MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge : This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (a)(1) .' For purposes of this 'All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure .
issioner, T .C . Memo . 1999-288, we held that petitioner was liable for a substantial income tax deficiency for 1991, a smaller income tax deficiency for 1992, accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1991 and 1992, and a penalty under section 6673 . Although petitioner appealed the decision in Golub, his appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the decision is now final . See secs . 7481(a)(2), 7483 . On March 30, 2005, respondent submitted to the County Clerk for Richmond County, St
The issues for decision are : (1) Whether petitioner had unreported nonemployee income for 2004 ; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for 2004 ;1 and (3) whether the Court should sua sponte impose upon petitioner a section 6673 penalty .
Respondent moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 (the motion) .
The only bona fliide issue presented i s whether a penalty should be awarded under section 6673 and, i f so, how much .
In each case, respondent moved at trial for a dismissal for failure to properly prosecute and for th e SERVED FES 13 2008 2 - imposition of penalties under section 6673 .1 We must decide whether the cases should be dismissed for lack of prosecution and whether penalties should be imposed .
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673 allows this Court to award a penalty to the United States in an amount not in excess of $25,000 fo r 8( . . .continued) calculated the addition to tax under sec . 6654(a) after accounting for the $3,573 .81 in Federal income tax withholding . 9 Because the tax shown on petitioner's 2003 Federal income tax return wa
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION SWIFT, Judge : This matter is before us at this time on respondent's motion for summary judgment as to petitioner's claim for interest abatement and for section 6673 penalties .
anuary 2, 2008 . Glenn Broderick, pro se . Patricia A. Komor, for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION MARVEL, Judge : This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121,1 and to impose a penalty under section 6673 . In this 'Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code . SERVED JAN 2 2008 - 2 - opinion, we shall treat respondent's m
1982-198 (shutting another re-visitation of the same issues from the prior cases for the 1977, 1978, and 1979 tax years by using collateral estoppel— and, by that point, section 6673), followed by Jacobs v.
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
espect to petitioner' s Federal income taxes for 2000 and 2001 .' Respondent filed a 1 Unless otherwise indicted, all Rule references are to the (continued . . . ) SE RVEP MAR - 6 2007 - 2 - motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 . We shall grant respondent's motion for summary judgment . Background The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following . In 2003, respondent sent petitioner notices of deficiency with respect to petitioner's taxable yea
In such circumstances, Internal Revenue Code section 6673 authorizes a penalty not in excess of $25,000 (in each docketed case) .
ocket No . 13649-06L . Filed May 29, 2007 . Richard N . Pate, pro se . Elke B . Esbjornson, for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINION THORNTON, Judge : This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 . 1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued . . . ) MAY 2 9 2007 - 2 - Background The record reveals or the parties do not dispute the following : Petitioner failed to file a Federal income tax return for 2
“The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.” Takaba v.
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings i s 5 For example, the notice of deficiency indicates that respondent determined the a
sed on an allegedly invalid notice of deficiency under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub . L . 97-248, 96 Stat . 324, partnership rules of sec . 6221 . SERVED JUL 2 6 2007 - 2 - seeks damages against petitioner under section 6673 . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times . Petitioner objects, and petitioner seeks damages against respondent under section 6673(a)(2) for making allegedly friv
“The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.” Takaba v.
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is 5 For example, the notice of deficiency indicates that respondent determined the am
Filed June 1, 2006. Robert E. and Mary K. Adams, pro sese. Paul K. Voelker and Wesley J. Wong, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673. ggo JUN 12006 - 3 - Discussion I. Summary Judoment Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Summary judgment may be granted if it is demonstrated that
Section 6673 Penalty In both his withdrawn and denied motions for summary judgment, respondent sought imposition on petitioner of a penalty under section 6673(a). Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 upon the taxpayer whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by him primarily fo
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673 allows this Court to award a penalty to the United States in an amount not in excess of $25,000 for 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
Petitioner is warned that further claims that he is exempt from taxes because he is a Native American may warrant sanctions under section 6662 or section 6673 for frivolous or groundless arguments.
Shortly thereafter, the Youngs filed a motion in this Court for attorney’s fees under section 6673 relating to services performed (and expenses incurred) by Izen on appeal.
liable for tax on a capital gain in taxable year 2001; (4) whether petitioners are liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662 for the taxable years 1999 through 2002; and (5) whether the Court should impose a penalty, sua sponte, under section 6673. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 3 - FINDINGS
MEMORANDUM OPINION LARO, Judge : This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 a s supplemented .' Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax ' Section references are to the applicable versions of the (continued .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Overview of Section 7430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Amplification of September 8, 2005 Order . . . . . 19 1. Inapplicability of Section 6673 . . . . . . . 20 2. Real Parties in Interest . . . . . . . . . . . 21 II. Entitlement to Relief Under Section 7430 . . . . . . . . 22 A. Jones Fee Request--Jurisdictional Issue . . . . . . 22 1. Respondent’s Position . . . . . . . . . . .
oss income as determined in the notice of deficiency, the balances due are within or without the 90-percent rule of section 6654(d). To that extent, respondent is sustained on this issue. Respondent filed a motion for imposition of the penalty under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United States, in an amount not to exceed $25,000, whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by such taxpayer - 8 - pri
oss income as determined in the notice of deficiency, the balances due are within or without the 90-percent rule of section 6654(d). To that extent, respondent is sustained on this issue. Respondent filed a motion for imposition of the penalty under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United States, in an amount not to exceed $25,000, whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by such taxpayer - 8 - pri
Section 6673 Whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay, the Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000. Sec. 6673(a)(1)(A). In this case, petitioner was advised that the purpose of filing the petition was to
not constitute a return. Turk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-198. Respondent, therefore, is sustained on the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). - 6 - At trial, respondent orally moved for imposition of the penalty against petitioner under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United States, in an amount not to exceed $25,000, whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by such taxpayer primarily f
We have imposed a penalty under section 6673 on taxpayers who have raised similar arguments.
nd $217.06 under section 6654 for those years, respectively. Because petitioner - 2 - did not raise any bona fide dispute with respect to the amounts determined by respondent, the only issue for decision is the appropriate amount of a penalty under section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner resided in Ne
ther petitioner is liable for a deficiency in the amount of $55,388 for the 2000 taxable year; (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and 6654(a); (3) whether the Court should impose a penalty, sua sponte, under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT The exhibits admitted at trial are incorporated herein by this reference.3 At the time this petition was filed, petitioner resided in St. Davids, Pennsylvania. In 2000, Petitioner received $117,307.32 in wages from Unis
uise Major (Louise) is liable for a deficiency in the amount of $1,016 for the 2001 taxable year; (3) whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1); and (4) whether the Court should impose a penalty, sua sponte, under section 6673. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 3 - FINDINGS OF FACT Some of th
to a determination by R that levy action was appropriate. Held: Because P has advanced groundless complaints in dispute of the notice of intent to levy, R’s determination to proceed with collection action is sustained. Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due from P and is awarded to the United States in the amount of $5,000. James Vernon Williams, pro se. Alan J. Tomsic, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case arises from a petition
vely. Respondent also determined additions to tax of $1,987 and $5,527.25 under section 6651(a)(1) and $303.52 and $1,170.76 under section 6654 for those years, respectively. At the time of trial, respondent filed a motion for sanctions under - 2 - section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. Background All of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated as our findings by this ref
d in his pretrial memorandum was that he was not liable for an income tax. Given petitioner's arguments, the Court considers both the deficiency and the additions to tax issues. - 3 - (4) whether the Court should impose a penalty, sua sponte, under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of the parties, with accompanying exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time this petition was filed, petitioner resided in
Section 6673 Whenever it appears to the Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay, the Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000. Sec. 6673(a)(1)(A). In this case, petitioner was advised that the purpose of filing the petition was to
Nevertheless, respondent has not asked for penalties under section 6673 to be imposed, and we choose not to do so at this time.
We also caution petitioner that similar arguments have led to the imposition of penalties under section 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions.
- 2 - Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, petitioner has deficiencies of $949, $896, and $1,843 in Federal income taxes for 1999, 2000, and 2001; section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax of $237, $224, and $451, respectively, for those years; and a section 6654(a) addition to tax of $39 for 2001.2 At trial, respondent orally moved to impose the section 6673 addition to tax.
Nevertheless, respondent has not asked for penalties under section 6673 to be imposed, and we choose not to do so at this time.
Cir. 1994). We sustain respondent’s tax lien filing with regard to petitioners’ 1997 assessed and unpaid 1997 Federal income tax deficiency, accuracy-related penalty, and interest. Lastly, we address respondent’s motion for an award of damages under section 6673. On the basis of the Court’s dialogue with petitioners, which occurred at the hearing on respondent’s motion for summary judgment, we decline to impose any section 6673 penalty on petitioners. We strongly encourage petitioners to abandon
2 in the amounts of $2,658 and $3,709 for those years. The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to any reduction of the deficiencies and penalties determined by respondent and - 2 - whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner resided in Wa
ion are whether petitioner is entitled to a deduction under section 166 for a bad debt loss in 1999; whether petitioner is entitled to an interest expense deduction under section 163; whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1); and whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States under section 6673 by reason of petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
judgment relating to petitioner’s liability for the fraud penalty; (2) held that petitioner had taxable income of $433,059 for 1981, $409,575 for 1982, $386,090 for 1983, $342,223 for 1984, $298,355 for 1985, and $1,913,176 for 1986; (3) sustained additions to tax under section 6654 for failure to pay estimated tax; and (4) imposed a penalty under section 6673 for instituting the proceeding primarily for delay and for maintaining frivolous positions.
Section 6673 Penalty At trial, respondent orally moved that the Court impose a penalty under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this - 8 - Court to impose a penalty on a taxpayer who has instituted or maintained a proceeding primarily for delay, or whose position is frivolous or groundless. We gave petitioner an opportunity to raise legit
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on any taxpayer who institutes or maintains proceedings in this Court primarily for delay, asserts a position in such proceeding that is frivolous or groundless, or unreasonably fails to pursue administrative remedies. It does not appear from the
- 2 - summary judgment and to impose a penalty on each trust under section 6673.2 Respondent filed motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 in each case.
- 2 - summary judgment and to impose a penalty on each trust under section 6673.2 Respondent filed motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 in each case.
e been designed, in whole or in part, to deal with the Tax Court backlog. Examples of these provisions are the increased damages assessable for instituting or maintaining Tax Court proceedings primarily for delay or that are frivolous or groundless (sec. 6673), the adjustment of interest rates (sec. 6621), the valuation overstatement and substantial understatement penalties (secs. 6659 and 6661), and the tax straddle rules (secs. 1092 and 1256). * * * The conferees believe that, with this amendm
ber 24, 2003. Michael W. Bethea, pro se. Linda J. Wise and Robert W. West, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. The instant proceeding arises from a petition for judicial review filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions(s) Under - 2 - Section 6320 and/or 6330.1 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether respondent
- 2 - summary judgment and to impose a penalty on each trust under section 6673.2 Respondent filed motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673 in each case.
cket No. 1193-02L. Filed January 8, 2003. Jeffrey M. Young, pro se. Jeffrey C. Venzie, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION RUWE, Judge: This matter is before us on respondent’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 1211 and to impose a penalty under section 6673. Respondent argues that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that his determination 1All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as
case indicates that they will use the hearing to raise bona fide issues relating to their undèrlying tax liability for 1990 and 1991. If, however, they use the hearing only for purposes of delay or to raise frivolous issues, we will consider an appropriate dispositive motion made by respondent and the imposition of a penalty of up to $25,000 under sec. 6673. See Nestor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-251.
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioner will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
Under these circumstances, the penalty under section 6673 is warranted, and petitioners will be ordered to pay a penalty of $500 to the United States under section 6673(a).
.C. Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654(a) 1995 $2,864 $716.00 $155.29 1996 2,592 648.00 137.96 1997 2,737 684.25 146.43 1998 3,666 916.50 167.75 The only bona fide issue for decision is whether a penalty should be imposed on petitioner under section 6673. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background The relevant facts have been d
ined additions to tax under section 6654 as determined by the Commissioner; (2) granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment as to fraud under section 6653(b)(1); and (3) granted the Commissioner’s motion for imposition of a penalty under section 6673. Id. Our decision in Allnutt I is final. OPINION A. Whether Respondent Timely Issued the Notice of Deficiency to Petitioner for Tax Years 1987-90 and 1992-95 1. Contentions of the Parties We first decide whether respondent timely issued t
taxable wage income; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax for failure to timely file his 1996 Federal income tax return and for failure to pay estimated tax; and (3) whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States under section 6673. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Tucson, Arizona. We begin b
Postscript Regarding Section 6673 Because our action granting respondent’s motion will serve to dismiss only a portion of this case, we take this opportunity to advise petitioners of the provisions of section 6673(a)(1).
es that they admit receiving. Throughout the lengthy administrative process and at the hearing on summary judgment petitioners did not raise anything but frivolous and baseless arguments, most of which have been rejected on numerous occasions by this and other courts. We admonish petitioners that we shall consider the imposition of a penalty under sec. 6673 in any future proceeding where petitioners raise the same arguments.
ncome tax deficiency of $92,384 for 1998 and is liable for an addition to tax under section 6654 of $3,941.12 for failure to pay estimated tax. The matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment and motion for a penalty under section 6673. - 2 - Background A. Petitioner Petitioner was retired and lived in Mississippi when he filed the petition. In 1998, petitioner received $217,331.44 in retirement distributions and $920.09 in nonemployee compensation. In 1998, Primerica
The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.
The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.
MEMORANDUM OPINION POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute, and motion for a penalty under section 6673.1 The issues before the Court are (1) whether, with respect to the 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.
The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate.
tax matters partner, did not have capacity to act on behalf of that “trust”); Bantam Domestic Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-63; Photo Art Mktg. Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-57, see also Lipari v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-280 (sec. 6673 penalty imposed on taxpayers who claimed they were unable to obtain records from Mr. Chisum, “trustee” of their “trust”); George v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-381 (“trust” of which Mr. Chisum was “trustee” was a sham, and payments receiv
455.00 1,821.00 1369-00 574 29.00 115.00 1370-00 114,727 5,736.00 22,945.00 1371-00 4,453 223.00 891.00 Background These cases are before the Court on respondent’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to impose a penalty - 3 - under section 6673. In docket Nos. 1366-00 through 1371-00, respondent filed a supplement to the motion to dismiss wherein respondent noted that the respective dockets were related to the lead docket No. 18510-99. A hearing was held with respect to the moti
455.00 1,821.00 1369-00 574 29.00 115.00 1370-00 114,727 5,736.00 22,945.00 1371-00 4,453 223.00 891.00 Background These cases are before the Court on respondent’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to impose a penalty - 3 - under section 6673. In docket Nos. 1366-00 through 1371-00, respondent filed a supplement to the motion to dismiss wherein respondent noted that the respective dockets were related to the lead docket No. 18510-99. A hearing was held with respect to the moti
business experience, educational background, prior history of filing income tax returns, or dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, prior to 1992. 4In respondent’s brief, he requests that we, on our own motion, impose an additional penalty under sec. 6673. Given the fact that petitioner has prevailed on the sec. 6651(f) issue, we decline respondent’s invitation. - 8 - additions to tax, nor did she address this issue in her brief. We therefore uphold respondent’s determination on this issue.
5 and 1996 taxable years; (5) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for the underpayment of taxes for the 1994 and 1995 taxable years; and (6) whether a penalty should be awarded to the United States under section 6673. For clarity and simplicity, we have combined the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, at the time he filed his petitio
Respondent has also moved for a penalty under section 6673, on the ground that petitioner’s primary position–-that the payments made to Universal are not petitioner’s income–-is frivolous.
tials of those Code provisions that apply to him. Under these circumstances, if petitioner proceeds in a like manner in a future case, he should understand that the Court may be inclined to give serious consideration to imposition of a penalty under section 6673. Petitioner may not be then able to hide behind the asserted advice of his unnamed tax adviser. - 8 - To give effect to the parties’ stipulations and respondent’s concessions, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
ction 7121(b)(2), we may not set aside or disregard the closing agreement. Furthermore, we find that petitioner is bound by Provizer v. Commissioner, supra, under the closing agreement.7 Respondent also filed a motion for an award of a penalty under section 6673. That section provides, in relevant part, 7 At trial, petitioner raised the argument that the closing agreement should be set aside because petitioner allegedly did not receive a prior offer that was more favorable to him than that which
business experience, educational background, prior history of filing income tax returns, or dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, prior to 1994. 4In respondent’s brief, he requests that we, on our own motion, impose an additional penalty under sec. 6673. Given the fact that petitioner has prevailed on the sec. 6651(f) issue, we decline respondent’s invitation. - 7 - additions to tax, nor did he address this issue in his brief. We therefore uphold respondent’s determination on this issue. D
involving their tax liability for 1992. In Liddane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-259, filed July 14, 1998, the Court rejected petitioners' frivolous arguments that they were not liable for Federal income tax and imposed a penalty of $2,500 under section 6673. These cases were submitted on February 1, 1999, and respondent moved for a penalty under section 6673 in the amount of $10,000, citing petitioners' prior case and pointing out that petitioners are raising and asserting here the same fri
- 4 - Respondent served a timely trial memorandum alerting petitioner that respondent would seek a penalty under section 6673 against petitioner for asserting groundless and frivolous positions.
o the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner did not appear for trial. Respondent filed motions for judgment by default and for a penalty under section 6673. Respondent's Motion for Judgment by Default Respondent's Motion for Judgment by Default relies on facts and evidence deemed stipulated pursuant to an Order of the Court made under Rule 91(f)(3) and, in addition, on facts pleaded in the
At trial, respondent moved for a penalty under section 6673 against petitioner on the grounds that he had instituted and maintained the proceedings primarily for delay and that his positions were frivolous and groundless.
involving their tax liability for 1992. In Liddane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-259, filed July 14, 1998, the Court rejected petitioners' frivolous arguments that they were not liable for Federal income tax and imposed a penalty of $2,500 under section 6673. These cases were submitted on February 1, 1999, and respondent moved for a penalty under section 6673 in the amount of $10,000, citing petitioners' prior case and pointing out that petitioners are raising and asserting here the same fri
1998. Steven J. and Jean L. Liddane, pro sese. Gerald W. Douglas, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION BEGHE, Judge: This case is before the Court on cross- motions for summary judgment under Rule 1211 and respondent's motion to impose a penalty under section 6673. Respondent determined a deficiency of $10,613 in petitioners' 1992 Federal 1 All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in
to "maritime jurisdiction", that the OMB number on Form 1040 is incorrect, and similar irrelevant or erroneous contentions, he renounced those arguments after having been warned by the Court that he was putting himself in jeopardy of a penalty under sec. 6673. We do not consider those contentions worthy of further discussion, nor will we dignify petitioner's arguments by addressing them one by one. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C.
lwaukee, Wisconsin, until 1980; at that time, he moved to Washington, D.C., and began working at Washington Gaslight Co. In approximately 1983, he returned to his private practice in Milwaukee. 1 On May 5, 1998, respondent filed a motion to impose a sec. 6673 penalty. On July 10, 1998, respondent filed a motion to withdraw the May 5 motion. On July 14, 1998, we granted respondent's motion to withdraw the motion to impose a sec. 6673 penalty. - 3 - In April 1987, the Governor of Wisconsin appoint
isions (in docket Nos. 9749-93 and 18569-93), which was denied. They also sent to the Court several other items of correspondence concerning their claims. During the pretrial process, petitioners were warned by the Court concerning the provisions of section 6673. - 6 - OPINION In this case, it is apparent from the allegations of their petition and from their correspondence that petitioners knew they were not entitled to the deduction of $99,000 claimed on their 1995 return. As early as December
Section 6673 Penalty Section 6673(a)(1) provides that, whenever it appears to the Tax Court 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, the Court may impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000. A petition to the Tax Court is fr
o the Answer, respondent also alleged that section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties should apply alternatively for 1990, 1991, and 1992 if we decide that section 6651(f) additions to tax do not apply. At trial, respondent moved for a penalty under section 6673. After concessions, the issues for our consideration are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for tax on his income from a veterinary practice and other sources for each of the years in issue; (2) whether petitioner is liable for self-emplo
tions claimed in relation to her tutoring activity, or to miscellaneous deductions claimed on Schedule A of her Federal income tax return; whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6662(a); and whether we should impose a penalty under section 6673. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. At the time that she filed her petition, petitioner resided in Washington, D.C. - 3 - Petitioner resid
The Section 6673 Penalty Petitioners are advised of the provisions of section 6673 giving this Court authority to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 5 Respondent determined in the notice of deficiency with respect to Mrs. Stafford that all or part of the underpayment for 1990 and 1991 is due to negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether to grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution; (2) whether to grant petitioner's motion for summary judgment; and (3) whether to grant respondent's motion for a section 6673 penalty.
nion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on (1) Respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. § 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 40, and (2) Petitioner's Motion For Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction. Petitioner resided in Phoenix, Arizona, at the time that his petition was filed with the Court. Respondent's Notices of Deficiency By statuto
ome tax returns. We again warn petitioner that his tax protester arguments, which we struck from his petition at a motions' session hearing, are meritless. Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983). If petitioner persists in making such - 11 - arguments in the future, he should be aware that he may be subject to a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673. Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
ns 6651(a)(1) and 6654, as determined in the notice of deficiency. - 7 - We would ordinarily caution petitioner that his continuing advancement of frivolous and groundless protester allegations might subject him to a penalty under the provisions of section 6673. Petitioner, however, has already received and ignored such a warning. Petitioner is interested only in using the Federal courts to propound his misguided views on the Federal income tax system, not in disputing the merits of either the d
, and did not estimate at trial, how much he earned from either of these jobs, 3In a chambers conference that took place following the trial, the Court warned petitioner against presenting frivolous arguments in his brief and called his attention to sec. 6673. Petitioner complained in his brief that he was "intimidated" by the Court during this conference. Due either to this perceived intimidation, or the exercise of sound judgment, to his credit, for the most part, he heeded the warning. - 10 -
§ 6673 in the amount of $5,000.00 were entered against petitioner Dorothy E. Wells. Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-150. 26. For each of the taxable years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, the petitioner Wayne E. Wells failed to file a federal income tax return. 27. Petitioner Wayne E. Wells has not paid any federal income tax for any of the four t
1) Respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Properly Prosecute; (2) respondent's Motion To Impose Sanctions For Petitioner's Failure To Comply With Order Directing Production Of Documents; (3) respondent's Motion To Impose Sanctions Pursuant To I.R.C. § 6673; and (4) petitioner's Motion To Dismiss, as supplemented. Petitioner resided in Warsaw, Indiana, at the time that the petition was filed in this case. We begin by setting forth the background necessary to an understanding of the parties
* * * About § 6673: Said statute reads in part: * * * .
denied all allegations. Respondent affirmatively alleged that petitioner's position was frivolous, that petitioner had unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies before commencing this case, and, therefore, is liable for a penalty under section 6673. Attached to the answer were copies of letters sent by petitioner to respondent's agents during the course of the investigation of his tax liabilities, which show that petitioner failed to cooperate with respondent's agents in the conduct