Even though I’m not asking for any, I want to observe the annual candy binge, so here’s James Alvis McClananhan, Docket No. 21627-17S, filed 10/31/18.

James Alvis McClananhan, a Texan, was on for trial in the City of Angels the day before yesterday. He didn’t show, but eleven days prior thereto, he laid the following before STJ Diana L (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden.

“…petitioner filed a document which the Court characterized as petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion). In this document petitioner includes the language of section 6065 and states “IF A NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY IS RECEIVED IT MUST BE VERIFIED BY A SIGNATURE UNDER PENILITES [sic] OF PURGERY [sic] OR IT IS VOID.” Taking into account petitioner’s status as an unrepresented litigant, the Court will accept for purposes of petitioner’s motion that he is challenging the validity of the notice of deficiency by asserting that it was not verified by a signature under penalties of perjury in accordance with section 6065.” Order, at p. 1 (Footnote omitted).

I give James Alvis McClananhan a Taishoff “Good try, second class.”

Unhappily, STJ Di does not.

“Section 6065 generally provides that documents or statements required to be made under the internal revenue laws must be subscribed under penalties of perjury. Petitioner’s section 6065 argument, however, is without merit. The requirements of section 6065 are directed at documents originating with the taxpayer, not the Commissioner. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 42 (2000). Thus, the notice of deficiency for 2014 is valid even though it was not signed under penalties of perjury. Milam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-94, at *3.” Order, at p. 2.

Happy Halloween.