Attorney-at-Law

YOUTH WANTS TO KNOW – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 05/20/2013 at 17:40

And Gets An Answer

Courtesy of Judge Ruwe, in Julie Beiler Zook, 2013 T.C. Memo. 128, filed 5/20/13, we get a partial answer to the question I posed in my blogpost “Youth Wants To Know”, 4/24/13, wherein I asked Judge Thornton why he dropped the Big Hammer, the $25K Section 6673 frivolity penalty, on hapless Laurel Ann Curtis.

Judge Ruwe only deals a $2K on Julie B., but tells us why.

“Petitioner attended the CDP hearing with her husband and two other family members. Petitioner acknowledged that she received the notice of deficiency. Petitioner did not request a collection alternative. Petitioner’s husband argued that she did not receive proper notice from the Commissioner and that the assessments were not constitutional.” 2013 T. C. Memo. 128, at p. 3. (Footnote omitted, but apparently Julie B.’s husband got shown the yellow card back in 2008, in an order denominated Zook I, when he pulled a similar maneuver. It would seem that one spouse’s delictions may be attributed to the other.).

After the usual recitation of SFR, deficiency, failure to petition, NFTL, CDP and Appeal, NOD and petition, with de novo and abuse-of-discretion review, Judge Ruwe cuts to the chase.

“The notice of determination advised petitioner that this Court may impose the section 6673(a)(1) penalty against her if she raises frivolous or groundless arguments. Petitioner did not heed this advice and made the following arguments in her amended petition and in her opposition to motion for summary judgment: (1) she was not properly served with notice under section 6001; (2) the SFRs constitute evidence of computer fraud and are a fraud on this Court; (3) the notice of deficiency is a nullity and constitutes evidence of mail fraud; (4) the notice of Federal tax lien is a nullity and constitutes evidence of mail fraud; (5) respondent is “exercising such powers through an officer other than the officer specified in law” and “in the absence of proof of jurisdiction”; and (6) “[p]etitioner received no ‘income’”, citing Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918), and Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921). The amended petition included many of the same arguments the Court deemed frivolous in Zook I (“The petition set forth various frivolous arguments”.).” 2013 T. C. Memo. 128, at pp. 8-9. (Footnote omitted).

Julie B., that’ll cost you $2K, with more to come if you don’t mend your ways.

Takeaway–Judge Ruwe gave us a pricelist for frivolity. It’s all à la carte.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: