                       T.C. Memo. 2006-257



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



             WILLIAM EDWARD THOMASON, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent*



     Docket No. 7337-05L.               Filed November 28, 2006.


          P filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to
     sec. 6330, I.R.C., in response to a determination by R
     that levy action was appropriate. The Court sustained
     R’s determination in a bench opinion rendered on a
     motion for summary judgment. R subsequently filed a
     motion for imposition of a penalty under sec. 6673,
     I.R.C.

          Held: A penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C., is due
     from P and is awarded to the United States in the
     amount of $1,500.



     William Edward Thomason, pro se.

     John D. Davis, for respondent.


     *
       This opinion supplements the bench opinion previously
rendered in this case on August 30, 2006, in Pocatello, Idaho.
                                 - 2 -


                  SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WHERRY, Judge:     The petition in this case was filed in

response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection

Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330.1     The matter is

presently before the Court on respondent’s motion for imposition

of a penalty under section 6673.

                              Background

     Relevant background information may be summarized as

follows.   Petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns

for the 1987 to 1992 taxable years.      On May 9, 1994, the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioner a statutory notice of

deficiency for those years.    Petitioner at no time alleged that

he did not receive the notice.

     No petition was filed with the Tax Court in response to the

May 9, 1994, notice, and the deficiencies and additions to tax

determined therein, as well as statutory interest, were assessed

on November 14, 1994.    Notices of balance due were sent to

petitioner for all years on that date and on December 19, 1994,

January 23, 1995, and February 27, 1995.

     Respondent subsequently issued to petitioner with respect to

his 1987 through 1992 income tax liabilities a Final Notice of



     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
                               - 3 -

Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, dated

July 8, 2004.   Petitioner, utilizing Form 12153, Request for a

Collection Due Process Hearing, timely sought a hearing,

explaining his disagreement as follows:

     Everything you claim I owe is false. My income has
     been so small for so long--If I filed--I’m sure I would
     be eligable [sic] for Govt. help. I have no idea how
     you arrived at the false numbers you claim against me.
     I have suffered much because of your tactics of
     intimidation and look forward to getting the whole mess
     straightened out.

     The IRS Office of Appeals thereafter sent petitioner a

letter dated December 3, 2004, briefly outlining the Appeals

process, explaining the issues that could be raised, indicating

that challenges to the tax liability would be unavailable except

through other avenues such as the audit reconsideration process,

advising of materials that should be submitted for consideration

of any collection alternatives, and requesting that petitioner

call to discuss and schedule the requested hearing.   Petitioner

called on December 17, 2004, continuing to voice disagreement

with the liabilities.   He was again urged to file missing returns

and to pursue audit reconsideration, but he apparently indicated

that he “was not interested” in making an appointment with a

local auditor or examiner.   Petitioner also stated that he wanted

a face-to-face collection hearing.

     On January 12, 2005, the settlement officer with Appeals to

whom petitioner’s case had been assigned sent a letter scheduling
                                 - 4 -

an in-person hearing for February 16, 2005, and reprising the

points made in the previous letter.      Petitioner neither appeared

for the hearing nor contacted the officer prior thereto.     The

officer left a voicemail message for petitioner, who returned the

call and alleged that he did not receive the January 12, 2005,

letter.   During that conversation petitioner also advised that he

was “living from hand to mouth and throws away receipts”.       The

parties rescheduled a hearing for March 17, 2005.

     On March 17, 2005, the settlement officer received a call

from petitioner, who said that he was still working on completing

financial information and unfiled returns.     The settlement

officer explained that she was unable to afford additional time

and would be closing the case.

     On March 24, 2005, respondent issued to petitioner the

aforementioned Notice of Determination Concerning Collection

Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 sustaining the notice of

intent to levy.   An attachment to the notice repeated the

prohibition on petitioner’s challenges to his underlying

liabilities, stated that petitioner did not raise any other

relevant issues or submit proposals regarding collection

alternatives, and noted that petitioner also had not filed income

tax returns for 1993 through 2003.

     Petitioner filed an imperfect petition disputing the notice

on April 18, 2005, and an amended petition on June 8, 2005, both
                                - 5 -

reflecting an address in Shoshone, Idaho.    The amended petition

read:    “MY GROSS INCOME WAS FAR LESS THAN YOU CLAIM I OWE IN

TAXES.    IN NOT ONE OF THOSE YEARS DID I EARN MORE THAN SEVEN OR

EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS.    I KNOW I DID NOT FILE.   I BELIEVED MY

INCOME DID NOT REQUIRE IT.”

     Respondent then filed a motion for summary judgment on

June 2, 2006.    Petitioner was directed to file any response to

respondent’s motion on or before June 30, 2006.     No such response

was received, and the motion was calendared for hearing on

August 29, 2006, at the session of the Court in Pocatello, Idaho.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner at call of

the case or at any of multiple recalls, despite the Court’s

having contacted petitioner by telephone during the session and

alerted him of times for the recalls.

     At the final recall on August 30, 2006, the Court rendered a

bench opinion granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

Earlier in the day, counsel for respondent had expressed a desire

to move for imposition of a penalty under section 6673 in the

amount of $1,500.    The Court had directed that respondent file a

written motion to that effect, which the Court would consider

prior to entering a decision in the case.    Respondent filed the

referenced motion on September 29, 2006, and petitioner was

ordered to file any response on or before November 2, 2006.      To

date, no response has been received by the Court.
                               - 6 -

                            Discussion

     Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require the

taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 when it

appears to the Court that, inter alia, proceedings have been

instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or

that the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or

groundless.   In Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581

(2000), we warned that taxpayers abusing the protections afforded

by sections 6320 and 6330 through the bringing of dilatory or

frivolous lien or levy actions will face sanctions under section

6673.   We have since repeatedly disposed of cases premised on

arguments akin to those raised herein summarily and with

imposition of the section 6673 penalty.   See, e.g., Craig v.

Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 264-265 (2002) (and cases cited

thereat).

     With respect to the instant matter, we have become convinced

that petitioner instituted this proceeding primarily for delay.

Throughout the administrative and judicial process, petitioner

has repeatedly failed to raise any substantive issues of merit,

to supply requested information, to comply with orders of this

Court, to submit responses when afforded an opportunity to do so,

and to appear at scheduled proceedings.   The resultant waste of

time and effort on the part of respondent and the Court is

undeniably one of the evils to which section 6673 is directed.
                              - 7 -

It therefore is appropriate to grant respondent’s motion and to

award a penalty of $1,500 to the United States in this case.      To

reflect the foregoing,


                                           An appropriate order and

                                      decision will be entered.
