                        T.C. Memo. 2006-10



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 LORAN J. FORBES, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11238-05L.              Filed January 24, 2006.



     Loran J. Forbes, pro se.

     John D. Faucher, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     RUWE, Judge:   This case is before the Court on respondent’s

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
                               - 2 -

can be granted and to impose a penalty under I.R.C. section 6673

(motion to dismiss).1

     On June 13, 2005, petitioner filed a petition with the

Court.   By order dated June 21, 2005, the Court directed

petitioner to file a proper amended petition on or before August

5, 2005.   Petitioner filed the amended petition on August 4,

2005, based upon notices of determination concerning collection

action(s) under section 6320 and/or 6330.   In the amended

petition, petitioner seeks redetermination of the deficiency and

review of lien and levy actions for the 1997, 2000, and 2001 tax

years.   Petitioner also alleges that “Notice of administrative

judgment by estoppel with sixty three (63) exhibits is

evidenced”.

     On September 6, 2005, respondent’s motion to dismiss was

filed.   In his motion, respondent asserts that petitioner makes

no factual claims of error and asserts only law and legal

conclusions in the petition.   Respondent further argues that

petitioner’s claims are “nonsensical on their face.”    On

September 12, 2005, petitioner filed his objection to

respondent’s motion to dismiss.   On November 30, 2005,

petitioner’s supplemental objection to respondent’s motion to

dismiss was filed.


     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 3 -

     On October 17, 2005, this Court calendared respondent’s

motion to dismiss for hearing at the Court’s Los Angeles,

California, trial session beginning December 5, 2005.    When this

case was called from the calendar at the trial session, there was

no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner.

     Rule 331(b)(4) provides that a petition filed in this Court

shall contain “Clear and concise assignments of each and every

error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed in the

notice of determination.”   Rule 331(b)(5) further provides that

the petition shall contain “Clear and concise lettered statements

of the facts on which the petitioner bases each assignment of

error.”

     Pursuant to Rule 123(b), this Court may dismiss a case at

any time and enter a decision against a taxpayer for failure to

properly prosecute or to comply with the Court’s Rules.    See

Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000); Stephens v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-183.     Rule 40 provides that a party

may file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.

     It appears that petitioner disagrees with respondent’s

determinations that it is appropriate to levy on petitioner’s

property and to file a notice of Federal tax lien to collect

petitioner’s tax and penalty liabilities.    The petition and the

amended petition, however, lack a clear and concise statement of
                                - 4 -

the errors allegedly committed by respondent or a statement of

facts that form the basis of petitioner’s assignments of error.

Petitioner failed to allege any facts that indicate that

respondent abused his discretion in determining that it is

appropriate to levy on petitioner’s property and to file a notice

of Federal tax lien.

     We find that petitioner’s claims state no justiciable basis

on which this Court may grant him relief.    Petitioner claims that

“administrative judgment by estoppel” and the Uniform Commercial

Code (U.C.C.) provide him with relief.    The U.C.C. argument he

asserts is similar to the argument that petitioner advanced in a

prior proceeding for the 1999 taxable year.    In Forbes v.

Commissioner, docket No. 15591-03L, this Court found that

petitioner’s argument was frivolous and groundless.    We find that

the petition, the amended petition, and other documents

petitioner has filed contain only incoherent arguments and

meaningless legalistic language.    “A petition that makes only

frivolous and groundless arguments makes no justiciable claim,

and it is properly subject to a motion for judgment on the

pleadings.”    Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523, 539

(2000).    Therefore, we shall grant respondent’s motion to

dismiss.    See Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 216-217 (2004)

(finding that a petition and an amended petition failed to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted when they lacked a
                               - 5 -

clear statement of error and contained “nothing more than

frivolous rhetoric and legalistic gibberish”).

     Respondent also requests that this Court impose a penalty

pursuant to section 6673 because petitioner has instituted the

proceeding primarily for delay.   Respondent further contends that

petitioner’s position is groundless or frivolous, and that

petitioner filed this petition as a protest to paying income

taxes.

     Section 6673(a)(1) provides that this Court may require a

taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of

$25,000 whenever it appears that:   (1) The taxpayer instituted or

maintained the proceedings primarily for delay; (2) the

taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is groundless or frivolous;

or (3) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available

administrative remedies.

     Petitioner has been notified repeatedly that this Court

might impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) if he

continued to assert frivolous arguments.   Petitioner lodged with

the Court what he captioned a “Commercial notice of

administrative judgment by estoppel with respect to notice of

international commercial claim within the admiralty

administrative remedy agreement/contract file number LJF09092004

& UCC financing statement file number 05-7017217898” (commercial

notice).   Attached to the commercial notice was a letter from the
                                - 6 -

IRS Appeals Office dated September 9, 2004, which informed

petitioner that this Court may require a taxpayer to pay a

penalty to the United States when the taxpayer’s position is

frivolous or groundless, or when the taxpayer institutes or

maintains a proceeding primarily for delay.    Also attached were

several letters in which respondent’s settlement officers denied

petitioner’s request for a face-to-face conference.    In those

letters, respondent’s settlement officers informed petitioner

that

       all of the positions or issues you raised in your CDP
       request are items either that:

            1. Courts have determined are frivolous or
            groundless, or
            2. Appeals otherwise does not consider.
            These are moral, religious, political,
            Constitutional, conscientious, or similar
            grounds. * * *

       Furthermore, this Court has previously cautioned petitioner

that asserting these frivolous arguments might result in a

penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).    On August 13, 2004, this

Court entered an order and decision in docket No. 15591-03L that

respondent could proceed with the collection action for

petitioner’s 1999 taxable year.    The Court issued the following

warning to petitioner:    “We will not impose a penalty upon

petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) at this time.

Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to admonish petitioner
                                 - 7 -

that the Court will consider imposing such a penalty if

petitioner returns to the Court and advances similar arguments in

the future.”

     Documents that petitioner attached to the commercial notice

indicate that, after this Court’s disposition of petitioner’s

previous case involving his 1999 liability, he filed a U.C.C.

Financing Statement describing the Judge in that case and

numerous employees of the Internal Revenue Service as debtors.

These documents indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice has

filed a complaint alleging that petitioner filed the U.C.C.

Financing Statement for purposes of retaliation and harassment.

At the trial session, respondent confirmed that petitioner had

filed the U.C.C. Financing Statement and that the U.S. Department

of Justice had begun the process of removing the lien arising

from that Financing Statement.

     We find that petitioner has asserted frivolous and

groundless arguments in this proceeding, which are similar to

those advanced in his prior case before this Court.   We also find

that petitioner instituted this proceeding primarily for delay.

We hold that petitioner is liable for a $20,000 penalty pursuant

to section 6673(a)(1).
                            - 8 -

To reflect the foregoing,

                                         An appropriate order and

                                 decision will be entered for

                                    respondent.
