T.C. Memo. 2006-194
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
BLAIR HANLOH, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 590-06. Filed September 11, 2006.
Blair Hanloh, pro se.
Miles D. Friedman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respon-
dent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673
(respondent’s motion).1
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
(continued...)
- 2 -
Background
The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the
following.
Petitioner resided in Long Beach, California, at the time he
filed the petition in this case.
On January 9, 2006, petitioner filed a petition with respect
to the notice of deficiency (notice) which respondent issued to
him for his taxable year 2003 and in which respondent determined
a deficiency in, and an accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a) on, petitioner’s Federal income tax (tax) for that year
of $69,348 and $13,870, respectively. The petition contains
statements, contentions, and arguments that the Court finds to be
frivolous and/or groundless. For example, the petition states in
pertinent part:
Petitioner’s fundamental claim is that the entire
“deficiency” notice is invalid as a matter of law,
because: (1) the alleged “deficiency” at issue is, in
reality, Petitioner’s “total” alleged tax liability for
2003; (2) the alleged “deficiency” was determined
without making a determination that a prior, 6201
assessment, was “imperfect and incomplete”;
(3) Respondent has no tax return showing a “tax due”
greater than the “zero” amount shown on Petitioner’s
2003 income tax return; and (3) no statutes makes
Petitioner “liable” for the income taxes at issue.
[Reproduced literally.]
1
(...continued)
effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
On March 21, 2006, the Court issued an Order (Court’s March
21, 2006 Order) in which, inter alia, the Court indicated that
the petition contains statements, contentions, and arguments that
the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. In the
Court’s March 21, 2006 Order, the Court also reminded petitioner
about section 6673(a)(1) and admonished him as follows:
In the event that petitioner continues to advance
frivolous and/or groundless contentions and arguments,
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 April 7, 2006, the Court received from petitioner a
document entitled “OPPOSITION TO RESPONDANTS [sic] MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE
GRANTED AND TO IMPOSE A PENALTY UNDER I.R.C. 6673 & RESTATEMENT
OF PETITIONERS [sic] CLAIM”. The Court had that entire document
filed as petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion (peti-
tioner’s response) and a part of it filed as an amended petition.
In total disregard of the Court’s March 21, 2006 Order, peti-
tioner included in petitioner’s response and the amended petition
certain statements, contentions, and arguments that the Court
finds to be frivolous and/or groundless. In fact, petitioner
included in petitioner’s response and the amended petition
certain frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and
arguments that are identical to certain frivolous and/or
- 4 -
groundless statements, contentions, and arguments that petitioner
advanced in the petition.
On May 11, 2006, respondent filed a supplement to respon-
dent’s motion (respondent’s supplement). On June 12, 2006, the
Court received from petitioner a document that the Court had
filed as petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion as supple-
mented. In total disregard of the Court’s March 21, 2006 Order,
petitioner included in petitioner’s response to respondent’s
motion as supplemented certain frivolous and/or groundless
statements, contentions, and arguments that are identical to
certain frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and
arguments that petitioner advanced in the petition.
Discussion
Rule 34(b) provides in pertinent part that a petition with
respect to a notice of deficiency is to contain:
(4) Clear and concise assignments of each and
every error which the petitioner alleges to have been
committed by the Commissioner in the determination of
the deficiency * * *. * * * Any issue not raised in
the assignments of error shall be deemed to be con-
ceded. * * *
(5) Clear and concise lettered statements of the
facts on which the petitioner bases the assignments of
error * * *.
The petition that petitioner filed on January 9, 2006, and
the amended petition that petitioner filed on April 7, 2006, do
not contain (1) a clear and concise statement of the errors
allegedly committed by respondent in determining the deficiency
- 5 -
with respect to petitioner’s taxable year 2003 and (2) a clear
and concise statement of the facts that form the basis of peti-
tioner’s assignments of alleged error. We conclude that both the
petition and the amended petition do not comply with the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure as to the form and content
of a petition.
Moreover, we have found that the petition and the amended
petition contain statements, contentions, and arguments that are
frivolous and/or groundless. “A petition that makes only frivo-
lous and groundless arguments makes no justiciable claim”. Nis
Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523, 539 (2000); see also
Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 216-217 (2004) (a petition
and an amended petition did not state a claim upon which relief
may be granted where they lacked a clear statement of error and
contained “nothing more than frivolous rhetoric and legalistic
gibberish”).
We find that petitioner’s claims in the petition and the
amended petition state no justiciable basis upon which relief may
be granted.
In respondent’s motion, respondent also asks the Court to
impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673. Section
6673(a)(1) provides in pertinent part:
- 6 -
SEC. 6673. SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS.
* * * * * * *
(1) * * * Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that--
(A) proceedings before it have been insti-
tuted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for
delay, [or]
(B) the taxpayer’s position in such a pro-
ceeding is frivolous or groundless, * * *
the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the tax-
payer to pay to the United States a penalty not in
excess of $25,000.
In the Court’s March 21, 2006 Order, the Court, inter alia,
indicated that the petition contains statements, contentions, and
arguments that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.
In that Order, the Court reminded petitioner about section
6673(a)(1) and admonished him that, in the event he continued to
advance frivolous and/or groundless contentions and arguments,
the Court would be inclined to impose a penalty not in excess of
$25,000 on him under section 6673(a)(1). In total disregard of
the admonitions in the Court’s March 21, 2006 Order, petitioner
included in petitioner’s response, the amended petition, and
petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion as supplemented
statements, contentions, and arguments that we have found above
to be frivolous and/or groundless.
Petitioner is no stranger to this Court. He previously
advanced frivolous and groundless arguments in Hanloh v. Commis-
sioner, docket No. 11986-05L. In that case, on November 7, 2005,
- 7 -
the Court entered an Order of Dismissal and Decision in which the
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted in that the case was
dismissed on the ground that the pleadings failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. In that Order of
Dismissal and Decision, the Court also stated:
Although we will not impose a penalty [under section
6673(a)(1)] on petitioner in this case, we will take
this opportunity to admonish petitioner that the Court
will consider imposing such a penalty should he return
to the Court and advance similar arguments in the
future.
We find that petitioner remains undeterred in advancing
frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and argu-
ments. We further find that petitioner has instituted this
proceeding primarily for delay. Under the circumstances pre-
sented, we shall impose a penalty of $25,000 on petitioner under
section 6673(a)(1).
To reflect the foregoing,
An order granting respondent’s
motion and decision for respondent
will be entered.