We’ve all seen Archie Willard’s painting thus entitled, the original of which, my source tells me, hangs in the Selectmen’s Chamber in Marblehead, MA.

Well, Rita B. Barrett, Docket No. 11899-20L, filed 7/20/21*, definitely has the 245th anniversary version thereof. Rita petitioned from a levy CDP whereat she did not contest her unpaid self-reporteds for 2016 and 2017; rather, she wants to “fight old battles o’er,” contesting yet again her liabilities for taxes and interest from 1976.

Again, STJ Peter Panuthos gets ’em. And with patience tells the story.

“In contrast to her 2016 and 2017 tax liabilities, petitioner has consistently challenged her liability for 1976, arguing that she is entitled to a refund of both tax and interest paid in respect of the deficiency for that year. However, tax year 1976 is not properly before the Court in the present collection review case. Petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s deficiency determination for 1976 was previously decided by the Court pursuant to an agreed decision at Dkt. No. 3101-84. Further, petitioner twice litigated her claim for abatement of interest in respect of the deficiency for 1976 before the Court at Dkt. Nos. 22940-07 and 26207-15. The decisions in all three of those dockets are final. In short, petitioner’s desire to relitigate these matters is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. As petitioner was previously advised by the Court in Dkt. No. 26207-15, the doctrine of res judicata bars repetitious suits on the same cause of action.” Order, at p. 3. (Citations omitted).

Oh yes, both Rita and her late spouse were represented by counsel when they stiped out back in 1984. “In 1984 petitioner and her late husband Benjamin Barrett commenced a case in this Court at Docket No. 3101-84 challenging a notice of deficiency that had been issued to them for 1976. The notice determined a deficiency in the couple’s income tax attributable to a tax shelter involving coal leases. Petitioner and Mr. Barrett were represented by counsel. In February 1986 the Court entered a stipulated decision in which the parties agreed that petitioners were liable for a deficiency in income tax in the amount of $79,542 for 1976 together with interest as provided by law. No appeal was taken, and the Court’s decision became final in due course. Petitioner and her late husband paid the deficiency in tax and the statutory interest that were assessed pursuant to the stipulated decision.” Order, at p. 1.

So IRS can levy. And since STJ Panuthos, forbearing as always, never mentioned the Section 6673 chop, we can be sure Rita will be back.
*Rita B Barrtett 11899-20L 7 20 21