My sermonette today begins with the words of a master craftsman of law and prose. The sermonette itself brings into high relief how the blunder impacts Section 6673 frivolity.

Jeffrey A. Hartman, Docket No. 7914-22, filed 12/14/22, filed a zero wages return for the year at issue. Jeff claimed a $14K refund, which IRS reduced by withheld FICA/FUTA to $9K. But IRS cut off the claimed refund and hit Jeff with a SNOD for $7600.

Jeff petitions, but it’s the usual protester jive, which STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden blows off with the usual Crain language, plus the copious citation of precedent that usually follows.

Jeff also challenges the delegation order to the signer of the SNOD, but that’s also a nonstarter.

So far IRS was looking good, but when they roll out the Section 6673 chop, something is missing, hence the title first set forth at the head hereof, as my high-priced colleagues say.

“As to respondent’s request that the Court impose a penalty under I.R.C. §6673, the Court notes that respondent in his motion refers to exhibits to the Declaration of DDD that were not filed with the Court. Therefore, the Court declines to impose a penalty at this time.” Order, at p. 3. (Name omitted).

Jeff does get the yellow card.

“…the Court takes this opportunity to inform petitioner that this Court may impose a penalty of up to $25,000 if a taxpayer institutes or maintains a frivolous or groundless petition or institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for delay. I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1). Although the Court will not impose such a penalty at this time, petitioner is warned that the Court may not be so forgiving if he continues to advance frivolous and groundless arguments.” Order, at p. 3.