## Facts

- Benedict John Casey filed a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging the IRS’s assessment of federal taxes.
- Before trial, IRS counsel sought information from Casey through informal requests and formal discovery.
- Casey failed to respond meaningfully to discovery and failed to comply even after the Tax Court ordered him to do so.
- Casey also failed to cooperate in trial preparation and instead sent IRS counsel vexatious and childish letters and drawings.
- At trial, Casey moved for sanctions against IRS counsel, arguing that counsel’s communications were vexatious and that counsel burdened him with excessive paperwork.
- Casey’s noncooperation left the record without reliable evidence supporting his challenge to the IRS’s determinations.

## Issues

1. Whether the Tax Court should impose sanctions against IRS counsel based on Casey’s claims of vexatious communications and excessive paperwork.
2. Whether Casey’s repeated failure to comply with discovery and court orders justified adverse procedural consequences and affected his ability to prove the IRS’s determinations incorrect.
3. Whether, on the record presented, Casey carried his burden to overturn the IRS’s deficiency determinations and related adjustments.
4. Whether Casey’s conduct warranted a warning or penalty under I.R.C. § 6673 for maintaining frivolous or dilatory positions in the Tax Court.

## Decision

- The court denied Casey’s motion for sanctions against IRS counsel.
- The court sustained the IRS’s determinations because Casey failed to produce credible evidence and did not carry his burden of proof.
- The court criticized Casey’s obstructive conduct in discovery and trial preparation and warned that frivolous tactics and misuse of the court process can lead to penalties, including under I.R.C. § 6673.

## Legal Principles

- IRS deficiency determinations are generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden to prove error. (Tax Ct. R. 142(a).)
- The Tax Court may compel discovery and enforce its orders; a party’s failure to comply can result in sanctions under the Tax Court Rules, including limits on evidence and other consequences appropriate to the misconduct. (See Tax Ct. R. 104.)
- Routine litigation activity by opposing counsel—such as written communications and discovery requests aimed at preparing for trial—is not sanctionable absent improper conduct.
- The Tax Court may impose penalties under I.R.C. § 6673 when a taxpayer maintains a proceeding primarily for delay or advances frivolous or groundless positions.

## Conclusion

In *Casey v. Commissioner*, the Tax Court rejected Casey’s attempt to sanction IRS counsel, found that the IRS’s discovery efforts were proper, and held that Casey’s refusal to participate in discovery and trial preparation left him unable to prove the IRS’s determinations wrong; the court sustained the IRS’s determinations and cautioned that similar conduct may trigger penalties for frivolous litigation.


Casey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-228 (2004)