TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Richard E. Marks
Docket Number: 4218-00
Judge: Dinan
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 01/08/2002
Pages: 4

ï . . T. C. Memo. 2002-4 RICHARD E. MARKS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF JNTERNAL RE ENUE, Responden Döcket. No. 4218-00. Filed January 8, 2002. Richard E. Marks, pro se. . Andrew J. Wyman, for respondent. MEMORAN.DUM -OPINION DINAN, pedŸal Trial udge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $3,240, an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $162, and an. accuracy-related penalty .under section 6662 (a) of $648, for the taxable year 1996. Unless otherwise indicated,2section . references are to the Internal Revenue. Code in effect for the SERVED JAN 8 2002 t - 4 - petition set forth "Clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error". We dismissed each of the cases involved in Funk v. Commissioner, supra, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In addition, we required each of the trusts to pay a section 6673(a) (1) penalty in thé amount of $1,000. section 6673(a) (1) allows this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not · in excess of $25, 000 where it appears to the Court either that a taxpayer has instituted or maintained a proceeding before the Court primarily for delay, or that the taxpayer's position in such a proceeding is frivolous or groundless. In the present case, prior to trial petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and at trial he moved for sumåary judéJment. Both of these motions contained frivolous arguments and were denied. Petitioner provided no factual evidence at trial, instead relying upon a reiteration of the frivolous arguments contained in the petition, motions, and . Other correspöndence to the Court. These frivolous arguments do little more than recite code sections a'nd case law which are irrelevant, taken complètdly o'ut of coritext, or äre'otherwise misapplied. In this case, "as in É'unk' v. Commissioner, supra, "We perceive no need to refute these argunients' with Šomber reasoning and dopious citation of 'precedent; to do so might suggest that - 5 - these arguments have some colorable merit." Id_ (quoting Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. an Order of this Court). Petitioner has again failed to comply with Rule 34(b)(4) and (5) by failing to set forth in his petition any justiciable claim or facts related thereto. Neither were any such claims or facts raised or alleged at trial or at any other time in this proceeding. Petitioner introduced not one iota of credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the tax liability in issue.¹ Furthermore, it is clear that petitioner has brought this frivolous case solely for purposes of delay and for the advancement of his personal views. We will therefore dismiss this case and enter a decision against petitioner under Rule 123(b). Rule 123(b) provides: For failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order of or for other cause which the Court deems sufficient, the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against . for similar reasons, decide against any party any issue as to which such party has the burden of proof, and such decision shall be treated as a dismissal for purposes of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Rule. the petitioner. The Court may, the Court ¹ Because petitioner failed to introduce any credible to any factual the requirements of sec. 7491(a), as evidence, he failed to meet amended, so as to place the burden of proof on respondent with to ascertaining liability respect for the tax deficiency in issue. As to the addition to tax and accuracy-related penalty, we find that respondent has satisfied his burden of production under sec. 7491(c) because the record shows that petitioner's return was filed late. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438 (2001). issue relevant i - 6 - In addition, we exercise our discretion under section 6673(a)(1) and require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States in the amount of $3,000. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued, and a decision will be entered for respondent.