Attorney-at-Law

LONG-TERM ROUNDER

In Uncategorized on 04/26/2016 at 15:59

I hadn’t started blogging when Martin Nitschke, 2016 T. C. Memo. 78, filed 4/26/16, made his Tax Court debut, got shown the Section 6673 yellow card, and later got hit with an introductory Section 6673 frivolity chop. But Judge Cary Pugh checked out (or maybe IRS helped her check out), Martin’s dubious past, and Martin now gets the $10K chop.

Here’s why.

“At trial petitioner refused to stipulate any documents, refused to testify, and stated on the record that he did not have evidence to offer regarding his income and deductions.” 2016 T. C. Memo. 78, at p. 2.

IRS had given Martin a SFR for the year at issue, because Martin hadn’t filed for that year.

IRS had an independent contractor agreement Martin signed, and a 1099-C from Chase, and put them into evidence. Martin didn’t dispute them, but refused to stipulate he signed the agreement.

So why was Martin there at all?

“Petitioner’s arguments regarding the validity of the notice of deficiency center on his failure to obtain copies of certain documents from respondent that he claims will show there was no deficiency.  He claims, for example, that there was no determination of worker status (an ‘SS-8 determination’).  We find the documents petitioner requested and his explanation as to their relevance difficult to comprehend.  Regardless of what petitioner seeks from respondent’s computerized records, they do not relate to petitioner’s income and deductions and would not establish that the notice of deficiency is invalid under section 6212(a).” 2016 T. C. Memo. 78, at pp. 5-6.

Anyway, there’s no required form for a SNOD. All a SNOD needs to do is specify the year and amount claimed (or provide the means of computing the amount due). IRS connected Martin to the income reflected in the SFR, and Martin connected nothing. And Tax Court does not look behind the SNOD; if it’s wrong, the taxpayer should prove it’s wrong.

And eight years ago, Martin tried the same moves, with the same result.

Chops rain down on Martin, culminating in the $10K frivolity chop.

Worldly-wise Judge Pugh knows that never stops a true rounder. “While a penalty here may dissuade him no more than ones we have imposed in the past, imposing the penalty on him again for his persistence in trying to deny or delay his obligation to pay tax by making frivolous arguments serves as a warning to other taxpayers considering these or similar arguments.” 2016 T. C. Memo. 78, at p. 12.

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: