Opinion
15922-23
08-07-2024
THEYA KANAGARATNAM, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Peter J. Panuthos Special Trial Judge.
On February 20, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 16, 2024, respondent filed an Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment.
A party who files a motion for summary judgment must demonstrate that (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Rule 121, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 528-29 (1985). Petitioner has not satisfied this standard.
Further, petitioner's argument that the payments that she received from her employer are not wages and are not taxable is frivolous and groundless. I.R.C. section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless. Petitioner is admonished that continued assertion of frivolous or groundless positions similar to those set forth in the Petition, as amended, and the Motion for Summary Judgment may result in the imposition of penalties pursuant to I.R.C. section 6673(a)(1).
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 20, 2024, is denied.