Want to get your e-filing privileges revoked? Daniel Richard Buczek will show you how. Remember Dan? No? Well, see my blogpost “Rien de Rien”, 10/6/14. Dan filed an utterly frivolous Form 12153, which IRS tried to use to lever a reversal of a previous Tax Court case (Thornberry) that has been a thorn in the side of IRS for years.

IRS lost on the reversal, but Dan got tossed anyway.

Nowise deterred, just over a week after Judge Dawson’s order tossing Dan’s petition, Dan e-filed eleven (count ‘em, eleven) documents, moving for judgment on the pleadings.

Kind of difficult to do successfully when your petition has been tossed. And even harder when all the eleven “contain mostly immaterial, impertinent and/or frivolous matters”, Daniel Richard Buczek, Docket No. 8512-14L, filed 11/4/14, at p. 3.

And Judge Dawson strikes all eleven.

Judge Dawson isn’t the patient, understanding kind of judge. Dan’s e-filing privileges are revoked. Moreover, when Dan goes to paper, he can’t file more than five (5) pages, inclusive of certificate of service, unless Dan “upon showing of good cause, has been previously granted leave of the Court to submit a document consisting of more than five pages….” Order, at p. 3.

Oh, by the way, Dan, “Petitioner is advised that advancing positions suggested by the materials now stricken could subject him to a $25,000 penalty. See sec. 6673(a).” Order, at p. 3.

An old law school saw furnishes a current lesson for Eugene J. Kernan, 2014 T. C. Memo. 228, filed 11/3/14.

I’m going to deal with E. J.’s briefing practice, and mention only in passing his habitual nonfiling and frivolity in support thereof.

“Mr. Kernan claimed at trial and on brief that he is not required to file a tax return unless and until he is personally notified by the Commissioner that he is required to do so. All of his briefs, however, exceeded the generous page limits that the Court allowed. As a result, the Court will deem Mr. Kernan’s briefs to be stricken. As for his argument that he is not required to file a tax return until personally invited to do so, that argument is frivolous. Mr. Kernan is required to file tax returns for the years at issue, and we sustain respondent’s deficiency determinations for those years.” 2014 T. C. Memo. 228, at p. 2.

E. J. earned money by hawking tax avoidance products and giving tax advice, although his qualifications were nonexistent. IRS claimed fraudulent nonfiling, but couldn’t muster clear and convincing proof thereof, at least not enough to satisfy Judge Buch.

E. J. relied on one sentence in Section 6001, which refers to recordkeeping, taken out of context, to justify his nonfiling, which he proclaimed to all and sundry. This gets him a “good faith” out from fraud, but not out from nonfiling and nonpayment penalties.

As to briefs, here’s Judge Buch. “Following trial the Court ordered simultaneous briefs, but the Court imposed page limits on the parties’ briefs. Both parties timely filed these briefs, but Mr. Kernan’s briefs exceeded the Court’s page limits. Mr. Kernan’s 88-page opening brief exceeded the 75-page limit imposed by this Court; his 88-page answering brief exceeded the 30-page limit that the Court imposed.” 2014 T. C. Memo. 228, at p. 9.

Why the page limits? “Judges impose page limits for a reason. They force parties to hone their arguments and to state those arguments succinctly. Page limits cause, or should cause, parties to dispense with arguments of little or no merit in favor of those arguments that have a better chance of carrying the day. They encourage parties to avoid redundancy. And repetition.” 2014 T. C. Memo. 228, at p. 9.

As the Bard put it so much better, “Brevity is the soul of wit.” Hamlet, Act II, sc. 2.

And here’s how poor little Tax Court, constrained by statute to limited jurisdiction and enforcement powers as it often piteously complains, deals with the prolix E.J.

“The Court was well within its power when it imposed page limits on the parties’ opening and reply briefs. The Court derives its power to prescribe rules for its proceedings under section 7453, which provides that ‘the proceedings of the Tax Court * * * shall be conducted in accordance with such rules of practice and procedure * * * as the Tax Court may prescribe’. There are no express page limits for briefs in our Rules; however, our Rules provide that ‘[w]here in any instance there is no applicable rule of procedure, the Court * * * may prescribe the procedure, giving particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’.            We have previously held that ‘[t]he implied authority of the Tax Court to enforce its Rules is a necessary adjunct to the full and effective implementation of the basic rulemaking power granted by section 7453. This doctrine of implied authority is well settled and has been applied by the Supreme Court specifically to tax tribunals.’” 2014 T. C. Memo. 228, at p. 12. (Footnotes omitted).

Judge Buch canvasses the Federal Courts to find copious page limitations for briefs. And Tax Court has stricken attempts to end-run the briefing page limitations. See my blogpost “Smiling Til It Hurts”, 4/19/12, where IRS’s attempt to run a 314-page “appendix” past Judge Kroupa crashed and burned.

So E. J.’s verbosity gets stricken.

Takeaway– Keep it short.

I’m sure many of my readers will join with me in mourning Tom Magliozzi, Click (or was it Clack?) of the Tappet Brothers. Car Talk has been a Saturday morning staple for me for many years, even when the show went to reruns.

I’ll miss the laughter.