Ya gotta admire Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro’s patience. When a frivolite who has already lost some Section 6702 frivolity chops years ago comes back, claiming gross income twice the US GDP, and alleging a bunch specious jive (hi, Judge Holmes) like non-existent withholdings and gross income he probably never got (but never disavowed at trial despite Judge Eminent’s repeated attempts to bail him out), it takes a patient judge to give him a 36 (count ’em, 36) page off-the-bencher to try to show him the need to mend his ways.

Here’s an example.

“For Mr. Umoren’s 2018 tax year, the Commissioner assessed tax of $363,644,242. This amount is rather striking in the circumstances here, and we would have been receptive to an argument from Mr. Umoren that his actual income in 2018 was insufficient to support such a large assessment.

“But Mr. Umoren refused, after repeated invitations, to make that argument. Notwithstanding efforts by IRS collections, IRS Appeals, the Commissioner’s counsel, and this Court to solicit information regarding his true liability for 2018, Mr.  Umoren stands by his original return. As a reminder, that return reported wages of nearly $7 billion and business income of almost $40 trillion (or about twice as much as the gross domestic product of the United States for 2018). And so, in the face of an assessment derived from adjusted gross income of $982,981,109, Mr. Umoren persists in arguing that his actual adjusted gross income was higher than the amount used by the Commissioner. He eventually testified that he actually received only about $25,000 of that income. But the Commissioner pointed out that an excerpt of a bank statement for 2015 that Mr. Umoren provided at trial showed two debits (that is, increases in
Mr. Umoren’s balance) totaling around $20,000 in one month, casting doubt on the reliability of the $25,000 figure.” Transcript, at pp. 26-27.

There’s more, but it’s painful. Judge Eminent suggests Umoren may be delusional.

“We do not doubt the sincerity with which Mr. Umoren advances his positions. ‘Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.’ Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d at 69. As the Court said in a similar case, such sincerity is but ‘a manifestation of a sad fact about human nature; [that is,] that we can talk ourselves into things that we know, on some other level of our consciousness, cannot be true. Therefore, whatever sincerity [Mr. Umoren] has will not exempt him completely from liability, though we do take it into account.’ Transcript of Bench Opinion at 10, Wnuck v. Commissioner  (No. 26068-09) (Jan. 12, 2011).” Transcript, at p. 34.

Of course, Scott Wnuck went on to a higher level. See my blogpost “One’ll Get You Five,” 5/31/11.

Decide for yourselves. Isang E. Umoren, Docket No. 10226-21L, filed 10/21/22.