Attorney-at-Law

THE ROUNDER’S COCKTAIL

In Uncategorized on 04/20/2017 at 17:21

It’s getting to be near that time. I see Judge Lauber is serving up The Rounder’s Cocktail. And Sean M. Murray, 2017 T. C. Memo. 67. Filed 4/20/17, has concocted one for the books…or at least for the blog.

Sean doesn’t bother with returns, but gets a trio of 1099-dashes, sufficient for IRS to give him a SNOD for $15K plus chops. Judge Lauber gives Sean another $1500 in 6673 frivolity at no extra charge.

Sean petitions. He claims he’s executor for his own estate, although alive and well. The caption of his case gets amended accordingly, and then amended back. Sean claims IRS violated Federal criminal statutes. Sean asks for trial in SF CA, although apparently resident in NY, while later claiming residence in Costa Rica. Then he asks for Albany, NY, but that’s for small-claimers only (which he didn’t request). Then back to NYC. Hey, ABA Tax Section, I wasn’t kidding when I said the Request for Place of Trial, Form 5, should be amended to state nexus for place of trial. Does he read my blog, I wonder? Or does he get the materials put out by the ABA Tax Section? See my blogpost “Same Time, Next Year,” 3/3/17.

Nice move, Sean, claiming Costa Rican domicile; I really liked the little I saw of Costa Rica, although climbing through the mountains at my age is a trifle rough.

But it’s the “gibberish commonly appearing on tax protestor websites” (2017 T. C. Memo. 67, at p. 4) that really does Sean in.

“Petitioner has repeatedly advanced numerous frivolous positions in this Court.  These include assertions that he has no obligation to file Federal income tax returns, that he is the executor of the estate of an artificial person, and that respondent’s counsel has violated criminal provisions of the United States Code. He has also engaged in tactics patently designed to delay the final determination of his Federal income tax liability, including filing documents with misleading captions, making multiple unjustified requests to change the place of trial, and submitting documents containing obvious falsehoods and laced with tax-protester gibberish.  He has repeatedly wasted the resources of respondent’s counsel and this Court.  We will accordingly require that he pay to the United States under section 6673(a) a penalty of $1,500.  This opinion will serve as a warning to petitioner that he risks a much larger penalty if he engages in similar tactics in any future appearance before this Court.” 2017 T. C. Memo. 67, at p. 15.

Shake, strain and serve.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: