Long-time readers of this blog will remember my oft-repeated praise for that obliging jurist, Judge David Gustafson; see, for example, my blogpost “Obliging and Energetic”, 7/5/13, which I ended as follows: “That’s Judge Gustafson – obliging and energetic”.

Well, Judge Gustafson has an off-the-bench designated hitter that shows again how obliging he is, even correcting the SFR of a frivolity merchant to give him a break, in Norval Edmond Hilderbrand, Jr., Docket No. 18248-12, filed 12/19/13.

Norval had been jousting with IRS for some years, but never got into litigation until he got the Internet tax protester bug and didn’t bother filing, notwithstanding the 1099-Rs from his pension plans and the 1099-SSA that the Social Security folks dropped on him. IRS, almost as obliging as Judge Gustafson, saved him the trouble of preparing a 1040 by doing one for him.

And IRS even threw in a SNOD at no extra charge. This caused Norval to petition.

Judge Gustafson gives Norval a lesson in Tax 101 at no extra charge. Thou shalt file a return if thou hast received money or money’s worth, from whatever source derived, in exchange for labor or services, and pay tax thereon.

Norval made so bold as to challenge this, but Judge Gustafson rejects Norval’s frivolity out of hand: “Mr. Hilderbrand’s arguments to the contrary–i.e., that the income tax is voluntary, that as a citizen of the Republic of Florida he is not subject to the income tax, etc.–are frivolous. We will not spend further time and effort refuting these frivolous arguments, for the reasons we explained in Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 501-513 (2011).” Order, at p. 6.

Remember F. Scott Wnuck, a legend in  his own mind? No? Then see my blogpost “One’ll Get You Five”, 5/31/11, my account of Judge Gustafson deconstructing tax protester Scott’s blather and nailing Scott with a $5K Section 6673 frivolity penalty.

Well, Judge Gustafson spares Norval a similar fate, largely because IRS didn’t ask for the frivolity bump. “Mr. Hilderbrand’s position is certainly frivolous. But the Commissioner has not requested such a penalty in this case, and we will not impose one. However, Mr. Hilderbrand is hereby warned that future frivolous arguments may result in the imposition of such a penalty.” Order, at p. 8.

But Judge Gustafson is always eager to oblige, so he helps IRS give Norval an unexpected benefit. “However, Mr. Hilderbrand is entitled to one correction of the IRS’s determination. Section 63(b) (1) allows a ‘standard deduction’ for each taxpayer who does not claim itemized deductions. In its notice of deficiency, the IRS allowed such a deduction for Mr. Hilderbrand. However, section 63(f) (1) provides that ‘[t]he taxpayer shall be entitled to an additional amount of $600…for himself if he has attained age 65 before the close of his taxable year.’ Mr. Hilderbrand turned age 65… well before tax year [at issue], but the IRS did not allow him this additional amount. At trial the Commissioner volunteered that this error should be corrected in Mr. Hilderbrand’s favor. To enable that correction, we will enter decision under Rule 155.” Order, at pp. 6-7.

Of course, Norval has to deal with nonfiling and nonpayment additions to tax.