Attorney-at-Law

THOSE WHO NEED IT

In Uncategorized on 08/22/2019 at 14:35

It is this blogger’s oft-repeated lament, whenever reporting a pro se’s obvious misunderstanding of the law, whether advertent or inadvertent, that “Those who read it don’t need it, and those who need it won’t read it.”

Today STJ Daniel A (“Yuda”) Guy gives us another example, Anthony Barfield, Docket No. 322-19, filed 8/22/19.

AB got tossed in May a year ago, when he petitioned before the SNOD had been mailed to him. I’ve blogged that often enough; see my blogpost “Illegal Procedure,” 12/1/16 and the posts cited therein. So IRS hit him with the SNOD, which he now petitions, saying Section 7481 finality renders the SNOD invalid, as IRS had their chance.

Except IRS didn’t. AB filed a “years petition,” when neither SNOD nor NOD has issued for a bunch of years. STJ Yuda explains: “Such a petition, commonly known as a “years petition”, does nothing other than allege for a substantial number of consecutive years that the taxpayer did not receive any jurisdictionally relevant IRS notice, such as a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination, that would permit an appeal to the Tax Court. A ‘years petition’ is a manifestation of protest from tax deniers and tax protestors.” Order, at p. 2, footnote 2.

I’ve blogged this gambit often enough. I was unaware it had acquired a popular name.

“Returning now to the present case, it bears mention that petitioner did not pay the filing fee when he filed his petition nor did he file at that time an affidavit or declaration containing specific financial information regarding the inability to pay the filing fee. By Order dated February 7, 2019, the Court directed petitioner to pay the filing fee or submit an application for waiver on or before March 25, 2019. Petitioner did not comply with this Order.” Order, at p. 3, footnote 3.

So STJ Yuda could toss AB for nonpayment, but instead gives IRS judgment on the pleadings, nails AB for the deficiency and the chop.

And AB gets the Section 6673 yellow card at no extra charge.” Finally, the Court takes this opportunity to remind petitioner that section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose on a taxpayer a penalty not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless. Although the Court will not impose such a penalty in this case, petitioner is warned that the Court may not be so forgiving if he returns to the Court and advances frivolous and groundless arguments in the future.” Order, at p. 4 (Citation omitted).

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: