I had thought that if a protester-defier raised a single meritorious claim in the blather of protester-defier jive, the protester-defier got the Luke 18:14 treatment and avoided the Section 6673(a) frivolity chop s/he otherwise richly deserved.

Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way didn’t note that Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch applied that principle back a year ago January; see my blogpost “A Small Success,” 1/13/25. Judge Ingenuity Buch spared Karen Lee Shuster the Section 6673(a) treatment because her frivolity, reporting her tax on her return as zero and in fact paying zero, did not breach the Section 6651(a)(2) failure to pay barrier.

Karen Lee is back, of course, this time in a CDP; frivolity is again on the menu. Karen Lee Shuster, Docket No. 6019-24L, filed 9/8/26, has Karen Lee trying to relitigate what she lost in the above-cited.

Judge Way amerces Karen Lee $1K for frivoling.

“Petitioner pursued frivolous arguments in a recent deficiency case before this Court. See Transcript of Bench Opinion, Shuster v. Commissioner, No. 27575-22 (Jan. 13, 2025), aff’d, No. 25-1062, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24745 (6th Cir. 2025). This Court warned petitioner against making such arguments in the future but chose not to issue a penalty at that time.”  Order, at p. 10.

Without wishing to put words in Judge Buch’s wordprocessor, I expect a single meritorious claim was enough to ward off a frivolity chop, lest the threat of penalties chill even a barely meritorious claim.

But I am far from endorsing Karen Lee’s litigation style.

“Petitioner has nevertheless continued to waste this Court’s resources. As in her deficiency case, petitioner has flooded this Court’s docket with specious motions. In her Second Amended Petition, petitioner rehashed, over fifty pages, the same constitutional arguments for which she was recently admonished. In her First and Supplemental Requests for Admission, petitioner filed 139 requests for admission, nearly all of which were frivolous, irrelevant, or both. The list goes on.” Idem.

IRS counsel claim they burned between 25 and 50 hours dealing with that junk.

Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda is a real judicial activist. He’s got five (count ’em, five) new venues for in-person trials, opens all Tax Court venues to all forms of trials (small claimer and regular alike), and substitutes scheduling calendars for trial calendars.

This all results from a deep-dive into DAWSON’s statistical wealth of what really goes on in USTC.

Read all about it here: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/A_09082026.pdf

It’s another one of them thar days, as Rule 25(a)(5)(A) instructs us to employ when Rule 10(d) swims into our ken.

Wherefore, as my remunerated writing position has been terminated by my publisher, thus deleting me from the ranks of the laborers, I nevertheless hereby acknowledge the statutorily set aside Labor Day.