TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John F. Mongillo, III
Docket Number: 14629-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/25/2011
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 KVC JOHN F. MONGILLO, III, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 14629-09 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit of petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of February 11, 2011, containing her oral opinion rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on the pages of the findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 25, 2011 SERVED Feb 28 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa February 11, 2011 Mongillo v. Commissioner Docket No. 14629-09L THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the years at issue as later defined, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving a proposed levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Fëderal income tax liabilities for the taxable years 2400, 2001 and 2003 (collectively the years at issue). This collection review matter is before the Court on petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 10, 2011. The Court ordered respondent to file a response or objection by February 7, 20 1, and scheduled petitioner's motion for a hearing in Hartford, Connecticut on February 7, 2011. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Petitioner appeared pro se, and Frank Louis 4 appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Pe.titioner resided in Connecticut at the time the collection review ýetition was filed. Petitioner was employed by Sikorsky Aviation for each of the years at issue and received a W-2 from his employer. Petitioner failed, however, to file timely a Federal income tax return for each of the three years at issue. Respondent prepared substitute for returns for petitioner based upon information from petitioner's employer and other third party payors. Respondent issued a statutory deficiency notice to petitioner for each of the three years at issud based upon the substitute for return. Petitioner failed to file a petition to contest the deficiencies, sg respondent thereafter assessed the tax liabilities. Petitioner failed to pay any of the unpaid tax assessments. Respondent sent petitioner a (Final Notice-Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Ýour Right to a Hearing advising petitioner that respondent intended to levy to collect the unpaid taxes fgr 2000, 2001 and 2003, and informing petitioner that he could Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 receive a hearing. Petitioner timely filed a request fo a hearing with Appeals in response to the levy notice. The hearing request covered each of the years at issue. Petitioner demanded a face-to-face hearing so he could question his liability for the unpaid taxes. The Settlement Officer asked petitioner to provide financial information and to file all delinquent returns. As set forth in the Determination Notice, petitioner failed to participate in a scheduled telephone conference. Petitioner also failed to provide the requested financial information and failed to file the delinquent returns. Without receiÝing the requested information and documents from petitioner, respondent issued the Determination Notice uphålding the proposed levy action to collect his liabilities for 2000, 2001 and 2003. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. Petitioner continues to argue that he is not liable for the outstanding amounts and wants to contest his liability even though he received deficiency notices for each of the years at issue. Petitioner advances arguments that this Court nd other courts have found to be frivolous. As mentioned previously, petitioner filed a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 summary judgment motion. At the calendar call for the session on which petitioner's motion was scheduled for a hearing, petitioner asked for a continuance. The Court denied petitioner's request. The Court also warned petitioner that he was at risk of the Court imposing a penalty against him under section 6673 for making frivolous and meritless arguments. Before the scheduled hearing on petitioner's motion later lon February 7, £6-6†, petitioner informed the Court 2011 that he no longer wished to pursue his motion. He cidmitted that he owed the amounts outstanding as he failed to f ile the required returns . OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter law. See Rule 121(b) ; Electric Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002) . The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002). Petitioner has failed to meet his burden. We therefore shall deny petitioner's motion for summary judgment. Instead, we find that respondent is entitled to summary judgment and we shall enter an order for summary judgment on our motion. See, e.g. Wong v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo, 2000-236. It is well established that courts have the inherent authority to issue orders as they deem necessary or prudent to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of their cases. See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-765(1980); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-632 (1962); Williams v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 920, 932-933(1989). We now address whether it is appropriate to impose a penalty against petitioner under section 6673, which authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty up to $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings ha e been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such | proceedings is frivolous or groundless. We note that petitioner asserts only groundless arguments. t is apparent from the entire record that petitioner Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 instituted or maintained this proceeding primarily, if not exclusively, as a protest against the Federal income tax system. Petitioner's tactics have consumed valuable Government resources. These tactics should not be condoned. They damage the integrity of the Federal tax litigation system because of the time and attention the Court and respondent must devote to these frivolous arguments, deprives other taxpayers with genuine controversies. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 412 (1984). When the Court has been faced with similar arguments that waste the Court's and respondent's limited time and resources, we have consistently found that the taxpayer deserves a penalty under section 6673(a) (1), and that penalty should be substantial if it is to have the necessary deterrent effect. The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled tax principles. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Gras elli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-581. We reluctantly do not impose a penalty against petitioner at this time primarily because he saw the.error of his ways and made a full concession. We strongly caution petitioner that should he bring Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 similar arguments before this Court in the future, he is at risk that the Court is likely to impose guch a penalty, up to $25, 00 0 . To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate orde will be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated May 13, 2009, upon which this case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for 2000, 2001 and 2003. The order will also deny petitioner' s motion for summary judgment . THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . (Whereupon, at 11: 48 a . m . , the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888