T.C. Memo. 2002-43
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
PATRICIA R. CARPENTIER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 2430-96. Filed February 12, 2002.
Douglas D. Potratz, for petitioner.
Timothy F. Salel, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GERBER, Judge: Respondent moved for the dismissal of this
case for lack of petitioner’s prosecution. Respondent also moved
that a penalty be awarded to the United States under section
- 2 -
6673.1 In this protracted case that has extended over a 5-year
period, petitioner has done little to address the underlying
merits of respondent’s determination. On November 6, 1995,
respondent issued two notices of deficiency determining Federal
income tax deficiencies and additions to tax for failure to file
returns and failure to pay estimated taxes for petitioner’s 1989
through 1993 tax years, as follows:
Income Tax Additions to Tax
Year Deficiencies Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
1989 $393,505 $98,376 $26,466
1990 55,055 13,764 3,623
1991 13,284 3,321 765
1992 42,031 10,508 1,833
1993 15,416 3,854 646
In great part, respondent relied on Forms 1099 reflecting
proceeds from stock transactions and dividend and interest income
that were ostensibly attributable to petitioner. Petitioner
alleged error, claiming, in essence, that the proceeds reflected
on the Forms 1099 did not result in income taxable to her.
Without petitioner’s cooperation, respondent has been able
to obtain information that supports petitioner’s allegation that
she was not obligated to report the proceeds from stock
transactions reflected on Forms 1099. In the course of
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for the
taxable periods under consideration, and all Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
respondent’s efforts to develop this case for trial, however,
respondent discovered that petitioner had unreported rental
income. That rental income, together with income from interest
and dividends that respondent had determined in the above-
referenced notices of deficiency, results in the following
reduced deficiencies and additions to tax, which respondent
requests we decide are due from petitioner, if we grant
respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution:
Income Tax Additions to Tax
Year Deficiencies Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
1989 $7,214 $1,491.00 $487.86
1990 2,659 664.75 174.10
1991 5,216 1,304.00 298.10
1992 3,841 960.25 167.10
1993 3,938 984.50 164.99
During the more than 5 years this case has been pending,
petitioner, who did not file returns for the periods in question,
did very little to show that she was not required to report the
proceeds from stock transactions reflected on the Forms 1099. In
addition, petitioner did nothing with respect to respondent’s
determination of interest, dividend, and rental income. Instead,
petitioner has mounted attacks on respondent’s and the Court’s
authority for the purposes of diversion and delay. After
respondent was able to develop information regarding the Form
1099 items causing a reduction in the income tax deficiencies,
petitioner continued to attack the authority, integrity, and
- 4 -
actions of respondent and the Court. Finally, when required by
the Court to address respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, petitioner
agreed that the Court could enter a decision for the reduced
income tax deficiencies asserted by respondent. Petitioner,
however, did not agree to the additions to tax. In addition,
petitioner contends that a penalty should not be awarded under
section 6673.
Respondent’s motions will be granted.
Background
The following chronology of some of the significant events2
is intended to show the protracted nature of this proceeding and
petitioner’s attempts to delay.
In a petition filed on February 7, 1996, petitioner alleged
respondent’s determination was in error because of “erroneous
1099 income” from a stock brokerage firm. Petitioner made
detailed allegations concerning her former attorney, who was also
attorney for her bank and stock brokerage firm, and others who,
according to petitioner’s contentions, intended to defraud her by
means of some type of conspiracy. Petitioner inherited stock
holdings that she alleged were sold without her knowledge or
financial benefit and she further alleged that Forms 1099 were
2
The chronology set forth in the opinion represents a very
small portion of the filings and proceedings set forth in a
seven-page docket sheet maintained by the Court.
- 5 -
improperly issued to her. Petitioner also alleged that these
same individuals caused or advised her not to file returns in the
expectation that she would die “before the truth came out” about
the conspiracy to defraud her. Respondent, in his answer,
generally denied petitioner’s allegations.
During the pendency of this case, petitioner changed
attorneys several times and on several occasions requested that
the location for trial be changed. The Court attempted to
accommodate petitioner’s needs, and this case was set for trial
on various dates and locations, including October 28, 1996, in
Washington, D.C.; April 7, 1997, in Los Angeles; May 21, 1998, in
Portland, Oregon; September 21, 1998, in Portland, Oregon; and
February 12, 2001, in Portland, Oregon.
Although petitioner sought to continue her case on several
occasions, she did not address the underlying merits of
respondent’s determination. Instead, respondent was forced to
resort to the Court’s Rules to promote pre-trial development by
means of admissions under Rule 90 and enforced stipulation of
facts under Rule 91(f). In each instance petitioner did not
respond to respondent’s requests for admissions or stipulation
and/or the Court’s orders to comply.
Throughout the history of this case petitioner failed to
cooperate and/or to communicate with respondent and provide any
information. Instead, petitioner generally accused respondent,
- 6 -
of “abuses, negligence, and IRS failure to [cooperate] as to
review of erroneous payor 1099's”. But petitioner did not take
steps to either prepare for trial or to develop facts addressing
the merits of the controversy before this Court. Instead and in
an attempt to circumvent the Court’s jurisdiction, petitioner
used collateral approaches, including the seeking of
congressional assistance and the assistance of the Taxpayer
Advocate.
Petitioner also sought the recusal of one of the trial
judges alleging a “Conflict of Interest, bias and prejudice and
special interest” essentially because the trial judge was
appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton and for numerous
other related allegations.
Due to petitioner’s failure to cooperate and/or failure to
follow this Court’s Rules and procedures, respondent, on February
15, 2000, moved for summary judgment based on facts that were
deemed admitted under the Court’s Rules. Petitioner responded
after several extensions. In an April 24, 2000 Order, the Court
explained that, even though the case had an extended history,
petitioner had not produced any probative evidence regarding the
underlying issues. It was further explained that petitioner’s
sole approach was to “attack respondent’s counsel and the Court.”
The Court, in the April 24, 2000 Order, advised petitioner “that
the Court is considering imposing a penalty under section
- 7 -
6673(a).” Petitioner’s response to respondent’s summary judgment
motion was to collaterally attack respondent and the Court and to
allege that petitioner was not being afforded Constitutional due
process and/or equal protection under the laws.
In a memorandum opinion (T.C. Memo. 2000-258) the Court
granted partial summary judgment for respondent. The effect of
the Court’s opinion was to preclude petitioner “from contesting
the matters set forth in respondent’s Second Request for
Admissions and respondent’s Amendment to Answer.” The admissions
and the amended answer concerned petitioner’s dividend, interest,
and rental income.3 The opinion also held that “respondent is
not entitled to full summary judgment insofar as material issues
of fact remain in dispute with respect to petitioner’s
entitlement to various deductions for the years in issue.”
Carpentier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-258.
The case was then set on the Portland, Oregon, trial session
beginning on February 12, 2001. On September 15, 2000,
petitioner moved for reconsideration of the above-referenced
holding. Petitioner’s reasons for reconsideration generally
concerned petitioner’s and her counsel’s failure and/or inability
to obtain records and their belief that the Court had a bias and
3
It is noted that because of the changes of the trial
cities and continuances, at least three different Judges have
been involved in petitioner’s case.
- 8 -
prejudice towards petitioner and her counsel.4 Petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
Thereafter, respondent on December 26, 2000, filed a Motion
to Dismiss on the ground that petitioner had failed to prosecute
her case. One of the alleged reasons relied upon by respondent
for seeking dismissal was that “Notwithstanding the many efforts
by respondent to secure cooperation from petitioner and/or her
counsel, petitioner has failed and refused in every respect to
cooperate to move this case toward resolution.” On January 3,
2001, petitioner moved for a fourth change of the place of trial
from Portland, Oregon to San Diego, California. Respondent
objected to petitioner’s motion and the matter was set for
hearing. After a telephone conference in which petitioner’s
counsel agreed to pursue the underlying merits of respondent’s
determination, the Court in a February 2, 2001, Order, continued
the case from the February 15, 2001, Portland, Oregon, trial
session and granted petitioner’s motion to change the place of
trial to San Diego, California.
On March 13, 2001, petitioner Moved to Stay Proceedings and
her motion was denied. Essentially, petitioner alleged that the
proceeding should be stayed until petitioner concludes her
4
In our Memorandum Opinion, Carpentier v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-258, the Court held that the matters deemed
admitted under Rules 37(c) and 90(c) established (1) the nature
and amounts of items of income that petitioner failed to report,
and (2) her liabilities for the additions to tax determined in
the notice of deficiency.
- 9 -
attempt to cause the removal of Tax Court Judges5 by the
President of the United States. In an April 10, 2001, Order,
petitioner was given until June 11, 2001, to respond or object to
respondent’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and Motion for
Damages under I.R.C. Section 6673, both filed on April 6, 2001.
Petitioner sought and was granted an extension to July 11, 2001,
on which date her response was filed.
Petitioner’s July 11th response advised that she is no
longer seeking, through the office of the President of the United
States, to have Tax Court Judges removed. Petitioner now advises
that she would agree to the reduced amounts of income tax
deficiencies sought by respondent. Petitioner, however, without
providing any evidence or reasonable cause for relief, does not
agree that she is liable for the reduced additions to tax sought
by respondent for petitioner’s failure to file returns and/or pay
estimated tax for the taxable years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and
1993. Finally, petitioner contends that no penalty should be
awarded under section 6673 because the delay in this case was
caused by respondent.
In particular, petitioner contends that it was respondent’s
refusal to correct the “erroneous Forms 1099" that caused the
delay. In light of the record in this case, we find petitioner’s
contentions to be disingenuous. Petitioner generally failed to
5
It is unclear whether petitioner was seeking to remove all
the Judges of this Court or only those who were assigned to or
acted on petitioner’s case.
- 10 -
cooperate and to address the merits of respondent’s determination
throughout the pendency of this proceeding. At each step of the
litigation process, petitioner’s response to respondent’s or the
Court’s attempts to address the merits was to make collateral
attacks on the Court’s and respondent’s authority. Petitioner
alleged various conspiracies to defraud her, but she did not
advance evidence showing respondent’s determination was in error.
When respondent was finally able to obtain information about the
Forms 1099 (mostly from third-party sources), adjustments were
made reducing the deficiency determination. The reduced income
tax deficiencies, agreed to by petitioner, are attributable to
unreported income from rental properties and unreported income
from interest and dividends.
Discussion
A. Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss
Under Rule 123(b) the Court may dismiss a case and enter a
decision where a taxpayer fails properly to prosecute or to
comply with the Court’s Rules. We have concluded that, in
deciding whether to dismiss, we balance “rival consideration[s]
* * * [involving] the policy in favor of having cases heard on
their merits with the policy in favor of avoiding harassment to
the defending party arising from unjustifiable delay.” Freedson
v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 931, 935 (1977), affd. 565 F.2d 954 (5th
- 11 -
Cir. 1978)(citations omitted).
In that regard, petitioner has been given every opportunity
to litigate the merits of respondent’s determination which was
issued on November 6, 1995. This case, at petitioner’s request,
has been moved to several different trial cities and placed on
numerous trial sessions only to have petitioner seek a
continuance. In all that time, petitioner has done little to
develop the case or resolve the issues underlying the income tax
deficiencies. At this point, petitioner no longer objects to the
entry of a decision for the reduced income tax liabilities
proposed by respondent. Petitioner, however, does not agree to
the additions to tax and penalties but has not shown reasonable
cause as to why she should not be held liable for failure to file
returns and/or to pay estimated tax. As indicated in footnote 4
of this opinion, we have already held that petitioner is liable
for the additions to tax.
Accordingly, respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on
December 26, 2000, and respondent’s Supplemental Motion to
Dismiss filed on April 6, 2001, will be granted and a decision
for the reduced amounts of income tax deficiencies and additions
to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654 will be entered against
petitioner.
B. Respondent’s Motion for Damages Under I.R.C. Section 6673
Under section 6673(a) a taxpayer may be required to pay the
- 12 -
United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000, whenever it
appears to the Court that, among other reasons, the proceedings
have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay. See
Sandvall v. Commissioner, 898 F.2d 455, 459 (5th Cir. 1990),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-56; Larsen v. Commissioner, 765 F.2d 939,
941 (9th Cir. 1985). As already described, petitioner has done
little, during the more than 5 years this case has been pending,
to address the merits of her income tax liability. Instead,
petitioner has delayed the proceedings at each step of the way
with spurious attacks on the authority and/or integrity of
respondent’s personnel and the several Judges who have been
involved in this case.
Throughout the proceedings, petitioner and her counsel have
refused and/or failed to comply with respondent’s requests and
this Court’s Rules in connection with the exchange and
stipulation of documents and evidence. Several motions were
filed and addressed under Rule 91(f) in an attempt to cause
petitioner’s compliance with the Court’s Rules.
In an April 24, 2000 Order, the Court explained that, even
though this case had an extended history, petitioner had not
produced any probative evidence regarding the underlying issues.
It was further explained that petitioner’s sole approach was to
“attack respondent’s counsel and the Court.” The Court, in the
April 24, 2000 Order, advised petitioner “that the Court is
- 13 -
considering imposing a penalty under section 6673(a).” In spite
of the Court’s warning, petitioner continued her collateral
attack and failed to address the underlying issues. Petitioner’s
incorrigible approach continued throughout the proceeding, even
though she was given numerous opportunities to comply in the form
of continuances, additional time, and the vacating of an order
deeming facts to be established under Rule 91(f). In each
instance, petitioner did not use the additional time to address
the underlying issues in her case.
Under these circumstances, we hold the petitioner has
maintained this proceeding primarily for delay. We therefore
award a penalty to the United States in the amount of $15,000
under section 6673(a).
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.