T.C. Memo. 2013-142
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JOSEPH TOTH, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 21665-11. Filed June 5, 2013.
Joseph Toth, pro se.
Timothy S. Murphy, Robert D. Heitmeyer, A. Gary Begun, and John D.
Davis, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before us on a motion for summary judgment
which respondent filed pursuant to Rule 1211 and to which respondent filed a
1
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at
issue.
-2-
[*2] supplement.2 We shall grant respondent’s motion.
Background
The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the following.
Petitioner resided in Michigan at the time he filed the petition.
During 2008, petitioner worked for Jacobs Technology, Inc. (Jacobs
Technology). During that year, petitioner received wage income from Jacobs
Technology of $30,431.56.
During 2008, petitioner also received unemployment compensation from the
Michigan Employment Security Commission of $234. He also won during that
year a “Detroit Tigers Fantasy Package” valued at $2,500 that CBS Radio, Inc.,
had provided.
Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax (tax) return for his taxable year
2008. Respondent prepared a substitute for return for that taxable year.
On June 20, 2011, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency
with respect to his taxable year 2008. In that notice, respondent determined the
2
We shall refer collectively to the motion for summary judgment and the
supplement thereto that respondent filed as respondent’s motion. Petitioner filed a
response to respondent’s motion (petitioner’s response), and respondent filed a
reply to that response (respondent’s reply). We shall sometimes refer to
respondent’s motion and respondent’s reply as respondent’s filings.
-3-
[*3] following deficiency in, and additions to, petitioner’s tax for his taxable year
2008:
Additions to Tax under Secs.
Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6651(a)(2) 6654(a)
$3,556 $800.10 $444.50 $114.30
On September 24, 2012, we issued an Order (September 24, 2012 Order) in
which we ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent’s motion for summary
judgment. In that order, we also indicated that our review of the record suggested
that petitioner might intend to advance in this case certain frivolous and/or
groundless statements, contentions, arguments, and/or questions. We reminded
petitioner in the September 24, 2012 Order about section 6673(a)(1) and
admonished him that if he advanced in this case frivolous and/or groundless
statements, contentions, arguments, and/or questions and/or instituted or
maintained this proceeding primarily for delay, we would impose on him a penalty
under section 6673(a)(1) in an amount not exceeding $25,000.
On December 19, 2012, petitioner filed petitioner’s response.
Discussion
We may grant summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b);
-4-
[*4] Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff’d, 17 F.3d
965 (7th Cir. 1994).
In respondent’s filings, respondent seeks summary adjudication that
petitioner is liable for the following deficiency in, and additions to, petitioner’s tax
for his taxable year 2008:
Additions to Tax under Secs.
Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6651(a)(2) 6654(a)
$3,233 $727.43 $792.09 $103.88
It is petitioner’s position that there are genuine disputes of material fact that
preclude us from granting respondent’s motion. In support of that position,
petitioner advances in petitioner’s response certain statements, contentions, and/or
arguments that we find to be frivolous and/or groundless.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we conclude that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that requires a trial. We further
conclude that respondent is entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law.
We turn now sua sponte to section 6673(a)(1), a provision that we brought
to petitioner’s attention in our September 24, 2012 Order. Section 6673(a)(1)
authorizes us to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty in an
amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to us, inter alia, that the
-5-
[*5] taxpayer instituted or maintained a proceeding before us primarily for delay,
sec. 6673(a)(1)(A), or that the taxpayer’s position in a proceeding before us is
frivolous or groundless, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B).
In our September 24, 2012 Order, we ordered petitioner to file a response to
respondent’s motion for summary judgment. We also admonished petitioner in
that Order that we would impose a penalty on him under section 6673(a)(1) if he
advanced frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, arguments, and/or
questions and/or instituted or maintained this proceeding primarily for delay.
Nonetheless, petitioner advances in petitioner’s response certain statements,
contentions, and/or arguments that we find to be frivolous and/or groundless.
On the record before us, we find that petitioner’s position in this case is
frivolous and groundless and that he instituted and maintained this case primarily
for delay. Accordingly, we shall impose on petitioner a penalty under section
6673(a)(1) in the amount of $1,500.
We have considered any statements, contentions, arguments, and/or
questions of petitioner that are not frivolous and/or groundless and that are not
discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.
On the record before us, we shall grant respondent’s motion.
-6-
[*6] To reflect the foregoing,
An order granting respondent’s
motion and decision for respondent will be
entered.