Attorney-at-Law

“THIS LITTLE LIGHT OF MINE”

In Uncategorized on 08/29/2018 at 17:28

Harry Dixon Loes’ 1920 evergreen gives me my text for today. My subtext comes from my blogpost “I’m Beginning to See the Light,” 4/9/18. And the case in point is Ted John Nelson, Jr. a.k.a. Theodore John Nelson, Jr., Docket No. 11098-18, filed 8/29/18.

My abovecited blogpost detailed the exposure by ex-Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel of the petitioning of a plethora of years, whether or not SNODs or NODs actually were issued. The idea was to try to cut off nonassessables, which of course doesn’t work.

I remarked back in April “But dodgers, beware. Someone trying this risks the Section 6673 $25K yellow card.”

Looks like TJ is up for the yellow card.

“The motion sought dismissal on the ground that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable years 2000 through 2017, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner’s tax years 2000 through 2017, including any determination pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed. The motion further requested that the Court impose a penalty under section 6673, I.R.C. That section authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer(s) primarily for delay or that the position of the taxpayer(s) in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.” Order, at p. 1. (Emphasis by the Court).

TJ wisely ducks.

“…petitioner did not deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent’s motion regarding lack of a pertinent notice or determination, nor did it suggest the existence of any relevant notice or determination. To the contrary, the response contained the statement: ‘I consent to dismissal’.” Order, at p. 1.

No Section 6673 frivolity chop for TJ, but TJ is admonished by Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley “…that the Court will consider imposing such a penalty in future cases commenced by petitioner seeking similar relief under similar circumstances.” Order, at p. 2.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: