                              T.C. Memo. 2015-70



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              ALVIN SHELDON KANOFSKY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 22008-13L.                       Filed April 8, 2015.



      Alvin Sheldon Kanofsky, pro se.

      Bradley C. Plovan, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


      RUWE, Judge: Petitioner seeks review pursuant to sections 6320(b) and

(c)1 and 6330(d)(1) of the determination of the Internal Revenue Service to uphold



      1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
                                        -2-

[*2] the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien for unpaid income tax for 2006 and

2007. Respondent has moved for summary judgment (motion) under Rule 121.

Petitioner objects. The matter is ripe for summary judgment.

      At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Pennsylvania.

      The unpaid tax for 2006 and 2007 was the subject of a recently decided case

involving a proposed levy. Kanofsky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-34. In

that case this Court upheld the determination to proceed with the levy. The Court

rejected petitioner’s position in that case and imposed a $20,000 section

6673(a)(1) penalty because petitioner’s position was frivolous and his case had

been instituted for the sole purpose of delay.

      In the instant case petitioner raises the same frivolous arguments.2 We

perceive no need to once again refute those arguments with somber reasoning and

copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that those arguments have

some merit. Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).




      2
       See also Kanofsky v. Commissioner, 424 Fed. Appx. 189 (3d Cir. 2011)
(per curiam), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2010-46; Kanofsky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2014-153. To the extent petitioner’s response (and attachments thereto) to
respondent’s motion might be construed as raising any other arguments, we find
them to be equally frivolous or irrelevant.
                                       -3-

[*3] For the reasons stated in Kanofsky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-34,

we uphold respondent’s determination regarding the lien and will require that

petitioner pay a penalty under section 6673(a) in the amount of $20,000.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                                         An appropriate order and

                                                  decision will be entered.
