Hassell v. Comm'r , 92 T.C.M. 273 ( 2006 )

T.C. Memo. 2006-196
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
MELVIN RAY HASSELL, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 6074-05L. Filed September 11, 2006.
Melvin Ray Hassell, pro se.
Meredyth A. Purdy, for respondent.
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). We shall grant respondent’s
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
motion.
Background
The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the
following.
Petitioner Melvin Ray Hassell (petitioner or Mr. Hassell)
resided in Irving, Texas, at the time he filed the petition in
this case.
On November 23, 1981, February 7, 1983, February 27, 1984,
March 25, 1985, and December 9, 1985, petitioner and Nelda
Hassell (Ms. Hassell) jointly filed Form 1040, U.S. Individual
Income Tax Return (Form 1040), for each of their taxable years
1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.2
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner with
respect to his taxable years 1980 through 1984. Petitioner filed
a petition with the Court with respect to that notice. (We shall
refer to the case at docket No. 19885-89 that petitioner com-
menced when he filed the petition with respect to his taxable
years 1980 through 1984 as petitioner’s Tax Court case.)
On September 20, 1990, the Court entered a decision in
petitioner’s Tax Court case. That decision provided:
Pursuant to agreement of the parties in this case,
it is
2
This case involves only petitioner, and not Ms. Hassell.
For convenience, hereinafter we shall sometimes refer only to
petitioner or Mr. Hassell, and not to petitioner or Mr. Hassell
and Ms. Hassell.
- 3 -
ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there are deficiencies
in income taxes due from the petitioners [Mr. Hassell
and Ms. Hassell] as follows:
Deficiencies
Additions to the Tax
Taxable Income
Year Tax § 6653(a) § 6651 § 6661
1980 $18,642.64 none none none
1981 $18,493.26 none $2,638.84 none
1982 $23,411.00 none $1,510.00 $5,853.00
1983 $ 8,257.00 $ 474.55 $1,684.20 $2,064.00
1984 $37,344.50 $1,867.23 none $9,336.00
That there are additions to the tax due from the
petitioners for the taxable years 1983 and 1984, under
the provisions of I.R.C. § 6653(a)(2), equal to 50
percent of the statutory interest due on $8,257.00 and
$37,344.50 from April 15, 1984 and April 15, 1985,
respectively, to the date of assessment of tax, or, if
earlier, the date of payment, and
That the entire deficiencies in income tax due
from the petitioners for the taxable years 1980, 1981,
1982 and 1984 are substantial underpayments attribut-
able to tax motivated transactions for the purpose of
computing interest payable with respect to such
amounts, pursuant to I.R.C. section 6621(c), formerly
section 6621(d).
As reflected in petitioner’s individual master file literal
transcript (literal transcript) with respect to petitioner’s Form
1040 and certain other information for each of his taxable years
1980 through 1984, on various dates (respective assessment dates)
respondent assessed petitioner’s Federal income tax (tax), as
well as any additions to tax and interest as provided by law, for
each such year.
On November 22, 1993, petitioner and Ms. Hassell jointly
filed Form 1040 for their taxable year 1992 (1992 return). In
- 4 -
that return, petitioner and Ms. Hassell showed total tax and tax
due of $19,195. When petitioner and Ms. Hassell filed their 1992
return, they did not pay the tax shown due in that return.
On November 22, 1993, respondent assessed the tax of peti-
tioner and Ms. Hassell, as well as additions to tax under sec-
tions 6651(a)(2) and 6654 and interest as provided by law, for
their taxable year 1992.
On October 26, 1998, petitioner and Ms. Hassell jointly
filed Form 1040 for their taxable year 1997 (1997 return). In
that return, petitioner and Ms. Hassell showed total tax of
$18,324 and tax due of $9,673.96. When petitioner and Ms.
Hassell filed their 1997 return, they did not pay the tax shown
due in that return.
On October 26, 1998, respondent assessed the tax of peti-
tioner and Ms. Hassell, as well as additions to tax under sec-
tions 6651(a)(2) and 6654 and interest as provided by law, for
their taxable year 1997.
On January 15, 2002, the United States of America (United
States) commenced an action (District Court proceeding) against
Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (District Court). In the District
Court proceeding, the United States sought, inter alia, to reduce
to judgment the tax liabilities of Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell
for their taxable years 1980 through 1984 and 1992.
- 5 -
On August 26, 2002, Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell filed a
petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Texas (Bankruptcy Court) under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the
United States Code (Chapter 11).3
On September 5, 2002, the District Court entered a default
judgment (District Court judgment) against Mr. Hassell and Ms.
Hassell in the District Court proceeding. That default judgment
provided in pertinent part:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court
finds that Defendants Melvin R. Hassell and Nelda J.
Hassell [Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell] are jointly and
severally indebted to the United States in the amount
of $804,558.41, for their unpaid federal income (1040)
taxes for tax years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and
1992, plus additional interest and statutory additions
thereon as provided by law from October 5, 1998 until
paid.
On September 16, 2002, Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell commenced
a so-called adversary proceeding (adversary proceeding of Mr.
Hassell and Ms. Hassell) in the Bankruptcy Court against the
United States. In that proceeding, Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell
sought a determination with respect to the validity, priority,
and extent of certain liens.
3
On Oct. 21, 2002, the proceeding that Mr. Hassell and Ms.
Hassell commenced in the Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 11 was
converted to a proceeding under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the
United States Code (Chapter 7). (We shall refer to the proceed-
ing that Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell commenced in the Bankruptcy
Court, as converted to a proceeding under Chapter 7, as Mr.
Hassell’s bankruptcy case.)
- 6 -
On October 1, 2002, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed
a proof of claim (IRS’s proof of claim) against Mr. Hassell and
Ms. Hassell in Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case for $903,599 with
respect to their taxable years 1980 through 1984, 1992, and 1997.
On October 17, 2002, Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell filed an objec-
tion to the IRS’s proof of claim.
On October 21, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
in Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case that, inter alia, found Mr.
Hassell to be “a ‘vexatious litigator’ - a person who files
frequent, unmeritorious lawsuits without proper investigation or
legal basis and for improper purposes.”
On February 7, 2003, Mr. Hassell filed a notice of appeal
(notice of appeal) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (Fifth Circuit)4 with respect to the District Court
judgment.5 On December 2, 2003, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
District Court judgment. United States v. Hassell, 82 Fed. Appx.
372 (5th Cir. 2003).
4
Sometime after Feb. 7, 2003, Mr. Hassell filed a motion
with the Fifth Circuit to add Ms. Hassell to the notice of appeal
nunc pro tunc. The Fifth Circuit granted that motion.
5
In the District Court judgment, as discussed above, the
District Court found that Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell were
jointly and severally indebted to the United States in the amount
of $804,558.41 for their unpaid taxes with respect to their
taxable years 1980 through 1984 and 1992, as well as additional
interest and statutory additions thereon as provided by law, from
Oct. 5, 1998, until paid.
- 7 -
On February 28, 2003, the IRS commenced a so-called adver-
sary proceeding (adversary proceeding of the IRS) with the
Bankruptcy Court. In that proceeding, the IRS sought a determi-
nation with respect to the dischargeability of the liabilities of
Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell for their taxable years 1980 through
1984, 1992, and 1997.
On December 16, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered a final
judgment against Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell with respect to both
the adversary proceeding of Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell and the
adversary proceeding of the IRS (Bankruptcy Court’s final judg-
ment with respect to the adversary proceedings). That judgment
provided in pertinent part:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
the Debtors’ [Mr. Hassell’s and Ms. Hassell’s] federal
income (1040) tax liabilities for tax years 1980, 1981,
1982, 1983, 1984, 1992, and 1997 are non-dischargable
under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), because the summary
judgment record more than establishes that the Debtors
have “willfully attempted in any manner to evade or
defeat” their tax obligations to the United States.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
Debtors Melvin Ray Hassell and Nelda Jo Hassell are
indebted to the United States of America (Internal
Revenue Service) in the amount of $903,599.00, plus
interest thereon from August 26, 2002 (bankruptcy
petition date) until paid, for their 1980-1984, 1992,
and 1997 federal income (1040) taxes; however, the
penalties and interest on such penalties included
within this amount will be discharged under 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(7) as to Debtors Melvin Ray Hassell and Nelda
Jo Hassell if their general Chapter 7 discharge is
- 8 -
granted,[6] because they were imposed with respect to
transactions or events that occurred more than three
years before the filing of the petition. * * *
On December 24, 2003, Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell filed a
notice of appeal with the District Court regarding the Bankruptcy
Court’s final judgment with respect to the adversary proceedings.
On November 30, 2004, the District Court affirmed that final
judgment.
On February 12, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered findings
of fact and conclusions of law with respect to a motion that the
United States filed in Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case requesting
relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. sec. 362. Those
findings and conclusions stated in pertinent part:
6. Debtors [Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell] have for
several years been involved in contentious litiga-
tion with the IRS. In this Court, the Debtors
have been uncooperative in discovery, have
launched personal attacks on government counsel,
and have begun to advance theories of tax protest,
questioning the federal income tax, the authority
of the IRS to collect taxes, and the authority of
a Department of Justice lawyer to represent the
IRS. Those arguments are frivolous and have been
rejected by this Court.
* * * * * * *
4. The automatic stay of Section 362 will be lifted
effective March 8, 2004. After that day the IRS
may seek appropriate orders from Judge Fish to
enforce the judgment [District Court judgment]
obtained in his court.
6
Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell were not granted a discharge
under Chapter 7. On Sept. 3, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court dis-
missed Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case.
- 9 -
On April 28, 2004, respondent filed notices of Federal tax
lien with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1980 through
1984, 1992, and 1997. (We shall refer to the notices of Federal
tax lien filed with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1980
and 1981 as the 1980 tax lien and the 1981 tax lien, respec-
tively.)
On May 3, 2004, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of
Federal tax lien filing and your right to a hearing (notice of
tax lien) with respect to his taxable years 1980 through 1984,
1992, and 1997.
On May 25, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order in
Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case holding Mr. Hassell in civil
contempt of court. That order provided in pertinent part:
IT IS ORDERED, and the Court finds, that the
Debtor Melvin Ray Hassell is in civil contempt of
Court, for not complying with this Court’s February 20,
2004 Order on United States’ Motion to Strike, for
Injunctive Relief, and Sanctions against Melvin R.
Hassell, because after February 20, 2004, Mr. Hassell
filed with this Court at least three pleadings wherein
he attempted to relitigate his federal tax liabilities
or to challenge the amount thereof.
On June 4, 2004, in response to the notice of tax lien,
petitioner filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process
Hearing (Form 12153), and requested a hearing with respondent’s
Appeals Office (Appeals Office). Petitioner attached a document
to his Form 12153 that is wholly irrelevant to the questions
raised in respondent’s motion.
- 10 -
On September 29, 2004, the District Court entered an injunc-
tion order against Mr. Hassell (District Court’s September 29,
2004 injunction order) that provided in pertinent part:
As a consequence of Hassell’s non-compliance with
prior court orders, a more expansive injunction is
warranted.
It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of this
court shall not accept from Melvin R. Hassell any
pleadings or documents in this case, or in any other
case filed or to be filed within this district, unless
Hassell first obtains leave from this court to make
such filing.
It is further ORDERED that Melvin R. Hassell shall
not file any pleadings or documents in this case or in
any other case, including as yet unfiled lawsuits,
either in federal court or any state court, unless he
first obtains leave from this court to make such fil-
ing. * * *
It is further ORDERED that should Melvin R.
Hassell violate this order, then he may again be held
in criminal contempt of court.[7] [Fn. refs. omitted.]
The respective literal transcripts for petitioner’s taxable
years 1980 and 1981 that respondent sent to petitioner by cover
letter dated February 2, 2005 (respondent’s February 2, 2005
letter) reflect that, at least as early as January 10, 2005,
petitioner did not have an unpaid liability with respect to his
7
On Sept. 21, 2005, the District Court issued an order
(District Court’s Sept. 21, 2005 order) finding that Mr. Hassell
(1) had willfully violated the District Court’s September 29,
2004 injunction order by filing a suit in the District Court
without first obtaining leave of the District Court and (2) was
guilty of criminal contempt. On Oct. 17, 2005, Mr. Hassell filed
a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit with respect to the
District Court’s Sept. 21, 2005 order. On Jan. 18, 2006, the
Fifth Circuit dismissed that appeal for want of prosecution.
- 11 -
taxable year 1980 or 1981.
On January 7, 2005, respondent released the 1980 tax lien
and the 1981 tax lien.
On or about January 19, 2005, petitioner sent a letter to
Mark W. Everson, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue (Com-
missioner). That letter contained statements, contentions,
arguments, and/or requests that the Court finds to be frivolous
and/or groundless.
On January 26, 2005, an Appeals officer with the Appeals
Office held an Appeals Office hearing with petitioner with
respect to the notice of tax lien.
On March 2, 2005, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a
notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under
section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination). That notice
stated in pertinent part:
Summary of Determination
Appeals and the taxpayer did not reach an agreement.
No relief was given for these periods [petitioner’s
taxable years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1992, and
1997]. The filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien is
appropriate.
An attachment to the notice of determination (attachment to the
notice) stated in pertinent part:
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Melvin Hassell (“Taxpayer”) requested a hearing with
Appeals under the provision of IRC 6320 as to the
appropriateness of Notice of Federal Tax Lien.
- 12 -
I recommend a determination letter be issued to the
taxpayer sustaining the filing of Notice of Federal Tax
Lien. For the years 1980, 1981, and 1982[8] tax liabil-
ity has been paid.
On January 26, 2005 this Appeals Officer conducted a
Collection Due Process hearing with taxpayer at 4050
Alpha Road, Dallas, TX, a Federal building. Taxpayer
disputed the underlying liability but was advised
Appeals would not consider the liability as an issue.
During the Collection Due Process proceedings, taxpayer
did not propose any acceptable collection alternatives.
The filing of Notice of Federal Tax Lien is appropri-
ate. Taxpayer had not paid the outstanding liability.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
1. Verification of legal and procedural requirements;
IRC 6321 provides a statutory lien when a taxpayer
neglects or refuses to pay a tax liability after notice
and demand. To be valid against third parties except
other government entities, notice of the lien must be
filed in the proper place for filing per IRC 6323(a)
and (f). Transcript show that notices and demands was
issued to the taxpayer.
Notice and demand as required by IRC 6321 for the
balance owed was issued and forwarded via regular mail
to the taxpayer’s address.
The 30-day notice required under IRC 6331(d) has been
sent via certified mail.
IRC 6320 as enacted by RRA ‘98 imposed Due Process
provisions effective January 19, 1999. IRS is required
to give notice to taxpayers in writing within five days
after the filing of a NFTL of the taxpayer’s right to
request a hearing with Appeals if the request is made
during the thirty days following the end of the five
8
The literal transcript for petitioner’s taxable year 1982
that respondent sent to petitioner by respondent’s February 2,
2005 letter reflects that, at least as early as Jan. 10, 2005,
petitioner had an unpaid tax liability for his taxable year 1982
of 17 cents.
- 13 -
day notification period. These time periods were met
in this appeal.
IRC 6330(c) allows the taxpayer to raise any relevant
issue relating to the unpaid tax or the NFTL or Notice
of Intent to Levy at the hearing.
This Appeals Officer has had no prior involvement with
respect to these appealed liabilities.
2. Issues raised by the taxpayer;
Underlying liability or amount of liability
Taxpayer is disputing the tax liability. In cases
where the Department of Justice (DOJ) have previously
reduced a liability to judgment Appeals has no author-
ity to compromise a liability or reconsider the liabil-
ity issue which includes taxpayer’s challenge to the
collection statute of limitations. Further, Appeals
does not have the authority to consider any offer
involving the release of federal tax liens or withdraw-
als. Accordingly, since DOJ has previously reduced
this taxpayer’s liability to judgment, Appeals does not
have authority to consider the liability issue.
The underlying liability is sustained.
Collection Alternatives
Taxpayer did not propose any acceptable collection
alternatives. When the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was
filed it was appropriate. The liability was valid and
outstanding.
3. Balancing of need for efficient collection with
taxpayer concern that the collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary.
We believe the filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien
balances the need for efficient collection of taxes
with concerns that the collection action be no more
intrusive than necessary. [Reproduced literally.]
Petitioner filed a petition with the Court with respect to
the notice of determination. The petition contained statements,
- 14 -
contentions, arguments, and/or requests that the Court finds to
be frivolous and/or groundless.
On February 22, 2006, the Court issued an Order (Court’s
February 22, 2006 Order) in which, inter alia, the Court reminded
petitioner about section 6673(a)(1) and admonished him as fol-
lows:
In the event that petitioner advances frivolous and/or
groundless statements, contentions, and arguments in
petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion ordered
herein * * * the Court will be inclined to impose a
penalty not in excess of $25,000 on petitioner under
section 6673(a)(1), I.R.C.
On March 8, 2006, petitioner filed a response to respon-
dent’s motion (petitioner’s response). Petitioner’s response
contains statements, contentions, arguments, and/or requests that
the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.
On March 28, 2006, petitioner submitted three documents that
the Court had filed as petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s
response (petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s response).
Petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s response contains state-
ments, contentions, arguments, and/or requests that the Court
finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.
Discussion
The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no
genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as
a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We
- 15 -
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact
regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion for summary
judgment.
A taxpayer may raise challenges to the existence or the
amount of the taxpayer’s underlying liability if the taxpayer did
not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is properly
placed at issue, the Court will review the matter on a de novo
basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
We turn first to petitioner’s taxable years 1980 through
1984. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner
with respect to those years. Petitioner filed a petition with
the Court with respect to that notice. On September 20, 1990,
the Court entered a decision in petitioner’s Tax Court case.
That decision stated, inter alia, that there was a deficiency in
petitioner’s tax for each of his taxable years 1980 through 1984
and that there were certain additions to such tax for each such
year except 1980.9
9
The IRS filed a proof of claim with respect to, inter alia,
petitioner’s taxable years 1980 through 1984. In addition to
petitioner’s having had the opportunity to dispute the determina-
tions in the notice of deficiency that respondent issued to him
with respect to his taxable years 1980 through 1984, which he did
in petitioner’s Tax Court case, as discussed below, petitioner
was afforded an opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liabil-
(continued...)
- 16 -
We turn next to petitioner’s taxable years 1992 and 1997.
When a taxpayer has the opportunity to object to a proof of claim
for an unpaid tax liability filed by the IRS in a taxpayer’s
bankruptcy action, the taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to
dispute the liability within the meaning of section
6330(c)(2)(B). Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 77
(2005). In the instant case, the IRS filed a proof of claim in
Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case with respect to, inter alia,
petitioner’s taxable years 1992 and 1997. Petitioner was af-
forded the opportunity to file an objection to the IRS’s proof of
claim, and he did so. Accordingly, petitioner had the opportu-
nity to dispute the respective underlying tax liabilities for his
taxable years 1992 and 1997. Id.
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the determination of the Commissioner for abuse of discre-
tion. Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, supra.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in
making the determinations in the notice of determination with
respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1980 through 1984, 1992,
9
(...continued)
ities for those years when he had the opportunity to object to
the IRS’s proof of claim in Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case. See
Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69, 77 (2005).
- 17 -
and 1997.10
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). Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the 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 a taxpayer
instituted or maintained a proceeding in the Court primarily for
delay or that a taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is
frivolous or groundless.
In the Court’s February 22, 2006 Order, the Court, inter
alia, reminded petitioner about section 6673(a)(1) and admonished
him that, in the event he were to advance frivolous and/or
groundless statements, contentions, and arguments in his response
to respondent’s motion, the Court would be inclined to impose a
10
The attachment to the notice stated in pertinent part:
I recommend a determination letter be issued to the
taxpayer sustaining the filing of Notice of Federal Tax
Lien. For the years 1980, 1981, * * * tax liability
has been paid.
* * * * * * *
* * * When the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was filed
[with respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1980, 1981,
1982, 1983, 1984, 1992, and 1997] it was appropriate.
The liability was valid and outstanding.
After the notices of Federal tax lien with respect to peti-
tioner’s taxable years 1980 through 1984, 1992, and 1997 were
filed and before the notice of determination was issued, the
unpaid liability for each of his taxable years 1980 and 1981 was
paid.
- 18 -
penalty not in excess of $25,000 on him under section 6673(a)(1).
Despite the admonitions in that Order, (1) on March 8, 2006,
petitioner filed petitioner’s response that contains statements,
contentions, arguments, and/or requests that we have found above
to be frivolous and/or groundless, and (2) on March 28, 2006,
petitioner filed petitioner’s supplement to petitioner’s response
that contains statements, contentions, arguments, and/or requests
that we have found above to be frivolous and/or groundless.
In the instant case, petitioner advances, we believe primar-
ily for delay, frivolous and/or groundless statements, conten-
tions, arguments, and/or requests, thereby causing the Court to
waste its limited resources. We shall impose a penalty on
petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of
$10,000.
We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, conten-
tions, arguments, and requests that are not discussed herein,
and, to the extent we have not found them to be frivolous and/or
groundless, we find them to be without merit, irrelevant, and/or
moot.
On the record before us, we shall grant respondent’s motion.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order granting respondent’s
motion and decision for respondent
will be entered.