David Gilmartin, T. C. Memo. 2022-64, filed 6/23/22, holds a Ph.D. degree in economics. He also consulted for, among others, “General Electric Capital Corp., Pfizer, Inc., WCI Financial Corp., NU Skin International, Inc., the Builders Association, Inc.,  National Economic Research Associates, Allegiance Group, and Atlantic Search Group, Inc.” T. C. Memo.2022-64, at p. 3. In addition, he was from time to time employed by “Klein Management Systems, Software Guidance & Assistance, Inc., Trans Action Information, Aerotek, Inc., Network Integration, and Eliassen Group, LLC.” Idem, as my expensive colleagues would say. All the foregoing supplied Dr. Gilmartin (hereinafter “Doc Dave”) with Forms 1099-MISC or W-2, as appropriate, over the twelve (count ’em, twelve) years at issue.

Except.

Doc Dave never filed or paid, and frivoled when on trial in USDCSDNY, and again before 2 Cir when he appealed the three-year stretch his frivolity earned him.

IRS gave Doc Dave SFRs when he finished the stretch, which he petitioned and frivoled.

Now Judge Vasquez is a pleasant gentleman. His courteous, almost courtly, manner is well-known. But Doc Dave seems to be a wee bit much.

“At the conclusion of trial, respondent made an oral motion to impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty against petitioner. The Court told petitioner that there was extensive caselaw rejecting his arguments and sanctioning taxpayers who made similar arguments. The Court also read the text of section 6673(a)(1) to petitioner before taking respondent’s Motion under advisement.

“Petitioner subsequently filed a 147-page Simultaneous Opening Brief expounding the frivolous arguments he had raised at trial.” T. C. Memo. 2022-64, at p. 6.

I’ll spare you Judge Vasquez’s trudge through the governing statutes and regs that impose and sustain Doc Dave’s manifold liabilities.

” Petitioner was aware that the arguments he advanced in this case have been universally rejected by this and other courts. Before trial he was convicted of, among other things, tax evasion under section 7201.  In a summary order affirming his conviction, the Second Circuit stated that it has ‘consistently rejected’ petitioner’s arguments. After petitioner advanced the same arguments at trial, this Court advised him of our longstanding caselaw rejecting his arguments. The Court also read the text of section 6673(a)(1) to petitioner. Despite our warning, petitioner filed a 147-page brief expounding his frivolous arguments. We will therefore impose a penalty of $5,000 against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).” T. C. Memo. 2022-64, at p. 11. (Footnote omitted, but it’s a cite to 2 Cir’s stitching up of Doc Dave.).