In addition to showing David Isaac Bindel, T. C. Memo. 2022-39, filed 4/20/22, the Section 6673 frivolity yellow card lest he repeat the “mine-run of tax-defier arguments” he trundled out, T. C. Memo. 2022-39, at p. 4, footnote 4, Judge Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda should have directed Davy to the above-set-forth advice from an authority even higher than the United States Tax Court.

In addition to the time-worn Subtitle C payroll tax gambit to defeat salary and wages, Davy claims he didn’t get the $20 shown on a W-2 from a software outfit for whom he developed something.

But Davy seriously overplayed his hand.

“Although Mr. Bindel testified at trial that [outfit] did not pay him $20 in [year at issue], we find this testimony not credible. The record before us contains a [year at issue] Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from [outfit] that reflects a $20 payment and Social Security and Medicare tax withholdings totaling $1.53. Mr. Bindel reported no wages  (or other income aside from $118 in interest income) on his [year at issue] income tax return, consistent with his position that his earnings are not taxable under the Internal Revenue Code. On Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., which he attached to his [year at issue] return, Mr. Bindel reported $1.53 in Social Security and Medicare tax withholdings by [outfit]. Mr. Bindel’s affirmative decision to report the exact amount of withholdings associated with a $20 payment (as part of his broader effort to seek a refund) belies his testimony and supports the existence of the $20 payment reflected on the [year at issue] [outfit] Form W-2.” T. C. Memo. 2022-39, at p. 2, footnote 3.