DocketNumber: No. 17901-06L
Citation Numbers: 2007 T.C. Memo. 200, 94 T.C.M. 78, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 202
Judges: \"Vasquez, Juan F.\"
Filed Date: 7/23/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to
Confronted with petitioner's refusal to work toward a stipulation of facts, on March 7, 2007, respondent filed a motion to show cause why proposed facts in evidence should not be accepted as established pursuant to
On March 9, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause under
On April 2, 2007, petitioner filed a response to the Court's order to show cause.
On April 4, 2007, the Court made absolute its order to show cause under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Accordingly, pursuant to
Petitioner failed to timely file Federal income tax returns for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. On October 17, 2003, respondent sent petitioner statutory notices of deficiency for 1997, 1999, and 2000. On February 4, 2004, respondent sent petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency for 2001. Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax as follows: 2*204
1997 | $ 52,911 | $ 11,905 | $ 2,851 |
1999 | 28,242 | 5,454 | 1,294 |
2000 | 53,465 | 12,030 | 2,876 |
2001 | 51,134 | 15,852 | 2,024 |
Petitioner received the notices of deficiency and chose not to petition this Court.
On March 29, 2006, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with respect to petitioner's 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 taxable years (levy notice). The levy notice listed petitioner's total outstanding liabilities as of that date as $ 79,614, $ 37,697, $ 18,099, $ 67,404, $ 64,011, and $ 55,670, for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively (a total of $ 322,495).
On April 20, 2006, petitioner sent respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, regarding his 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 tax years. The only reason petitioner provided on the Form 12153 for respondent not to proceed with collection was "Does not make sufficient money to help support myself."
On June 29, 2006, petitioner had a face-to-face
On or about July 12, 2006, petitioner mailed Settlement Officer Feist a copy of
On August 3, 2006, respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) *206 Under
On May 16, 2007, the Court held a trial in this matter. That same day, the Court filed respondent's and petitioner's pretrial memoranda. In his pretrial memorandum, petitioner stated that he did not intend to call any witnesses. Petitioner's pretrial memorandum contained frivolous and groundless arguments. Respondent's pretrial memorandum again warned petitioner about the
On May 18, 2007, petitioner filed a statement containing frivolous and groundless arguments. Petitioner's statement also contained disparaging and disrespectful statements directed to the Court. That same day, petitioner filed a voluminous document *207 entitled "Petitioner's Motions" which was replete with frivolous and groundless tax-protester arguments.
On May 30, 2007, the Court denied "Petitioner's Motions".
OPINION
Pursuant to
Petitioner received notices of deficiency for 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Accordingly, he cannot challenge his underlying liabilities for those years. See
At trial, the Court gave petitioner several opportunities to present evidence regarding his underlying liabilities for 1998 and 2002. The Court asked petitioner several times whether he wanted to address his deficiencies or underlying liabilities. When asked by the Court whether he had anything to say about his deficiencies or underlying liabilities, petitioner answered "No." Accordingly, we review respondent's determination for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 for an abuse of discretion. See
Settlement Officer Feist conducted a thorough review of the financial information that petitioner provided to him. Upon the basis of: (1) Petitioner's financial information, (2) petitioner's having taken no significant voluntary action (as suggested) towards resolving his tax situation, and (3) petitioner's having paid only $ *209 111 (via withholding) and $ 4,000 (via a 1999 estimated tax payment) towards assessed taxes of $ 184,733 for 1997 through 2003, respondent determined that petitioner did not submit a viable collection alternative.
At trial, the Court asked petitioner several times whether he wanted to put on any evidence or had any evidence to submit regarding respondent's determination. Petitioner did not take advantage of any of the repeated opportunities the Court presented to him.
Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent's intended collection action, or offer a viable alternative means of collection. These issues are now deemed conceded. See
At trial, the Court repeatedly advised petitioner to address the issues in, and present evidence regarding, his case. Instead of presenting evidence or addressing the merits of his case, petitioner belligerently shouted, yelled, and screamed irrelevant questions repeatedly at the Court. Petitioner repeatedly interrupted the Court and directed disrespectful statements to the Court. Additionally, rather than directing his attention to his case or the Court, petitioner shouted and called out to approximately a dozen persons in the gallery disrespectful and irrelevant remarks impugning the integrity of the Court.
In
As we stated in all courts are vested with the inherent "power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates". It is established that this Court has inherent power and authority to regulate and supervise proceedings before it so as to insure the integrity of its processes. The Court's inherent power extends to regulate both conduct *212 before it and conduct beyond its confines. The Court has recognized its authority to maintain the integrity of its proceedings and its ability to provide relief for a party's misconduct. In addition to our inherent power, The Tax Court and each division thereof shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as -- (1) misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; * * *
We stated: "contempt of court may be civil or criminal, depending upon the purpose being served. '[C]ivil contempt is coercive and remedial in character whereas criminal contempt is punitive to *213 vindicate the authority of the Court.'"
Although petitioner's actions herein were contemptuous, we shall not reward petitioner by delaying this matter any further. Perhaps petitioner will see the error of his ways. Should he return to the Court, however, and proceed similarly (e.g., by engaging in belligerent or disrespectful misbehavior in the presence of the Court to obstruct the administration of justice), petitioner is on notice that the Court will consider imposing appropriate sanctions pursuant to
To reflect the foregoing,
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. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
3. We note that the original version of the