In Uncategorized on 11/13/2020 at 14:36

CSTJ Lewis (“How To Spell It”) Carluzzo evinces the above sentiment to save Andrea Darnell, Docket No. 2548-20S, filed 11/13/20, from the Friday the Thirteenth jinx, not to mention a Section 6673 frivolity chop. But he also spares IRS any Section 6751 Boss Hoss inquiry in this off-the-bencher.

Andrea claims no taxable income, despite a $38K W-2, a $2500 1099-R and a SNOD.

“Petitioner does not dispute that she received the wage and pension income determined in the notice. Rather, she argues that the payments are not income. According to petitioner, gross income does not include compensation for services, wages, or salaries, and in any event, she is not the type of taxpayer that is subject to tax.” Order, Transcript, at p. 5.

Andrea could have done better than this tired protester jive.

CSTJ Lew only needs to go to his desktop to get the boilerplate.

“Petitioner’s position to that end is patently inconsistent with the literal language of section 61(a)(1) and (a)(10) and obviously frivolous. There is no need for the Court to address frivolous arguments ‘with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). It suffices to note that petitioner’s arguments have no colorable merit and nothing more be said other than to state that she is a taxpayer who is subject to Federal income taxation and obligated to pay Federal income tax on the wage and pension income she received….” Order, Transcript, pp. 5-6.

IRS’ counsel calls an audible post-trial for a Section 6673 frivolity chop. Does a Section 6673 require Boss Hossery? CSTJ Lew isn’t going there, especially in a small claimer.

Yeah, Andrea is a frivolite, and doubtless chopworthy.

“Nevertheless, in addressing respondent’s oral motion in this case, we consider not only petitioner’s arguments, but her behavior in advancing those arguments as well. In that regard we note that she stipulated to the receipt of the contested items of income thereby reducing what might have otherwise been a more lengthy trial and eliminating the need for the Court to consider additional evidence regarding the disputed items of income. Potential implications of section 6751(b) and Petitioner’s behavior tips the scales ever so slightly in her favor. That being so, respondent’s oral motion to impose a section 6673 penalty upon petitioner will be denied.” Order, Transcript, at pp. 6-7.

Takeaway 1- Frivolites, don’t count on this treatment in a T. C. Memo. or even a T. C. Sum. Op.

Takeaway 2- IRS trial counsel, I know that defending these petitions is frustrating, but calling post-trial audible Section 6673s isn’t going to help.

Takeaway 3- All litigants, don’t make the Judge work too hard.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: