                               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.
