Not a reprise of Erik McBride Thompson’s voyage of discovery, for which see my blogpost “Can Tax Court Be Habit-Forming?” 12/20/11.

Have I really been doing this for more than six years?

No, today’s seeker after wisdom and truth is Andrew Lee Stinson, 2016 T. C. Sum. Op. 82, filed 12/13/16.

Andrew Lee has a master’s degree in information science. But apparently in his part of North Carolina all he could find during the year at issue was indoor and outdoor odd jobs for an old acquaintance, ranging from dumping compost to editing Photoshop. This got him a big $13K, on which he paid tax but no SE.

IRS goes for the SE.

Judge Cohen tells it all in one paragraph.

“The petition alleged only petitioner’s dire financial circumstances and cited no error in respondent’s determination.  At trial petitioner stated that he was present ‘because I spent the $60 [filing fee] and for that amount of money I’d like to see how things work.’  Petitioner’s candor and credible testimony are appreciated but do not change the legal effect of the facts.”

It’s a shame Andrew Lee didn’t show up for a calendar call and maybe a trial. A trial in what the late lamented Professor Siegel called “S.E.C.” Someone Else’s Case. It’s a lot cheaper.