In Uncategorized on 02/09/2023 at 12:10

But A Question Remains

I never blogged James Harris, Docket No. 12818-22L, filed 2/9/23, when he visited The Glasshouse in the City of the Unrepresented sub num. 3596-18L, filed 5/23/19. As Judge James S (“Big Jim”) Halpern said at the time “(P)etitioner’s assignments are groundless, as are his objection to the MSJ [IRS motion for summary J]. The pages attached to his response to the MSJ are filled with ludicrous, frivolous arguments. Moreover, we are firmly convinced that petitioner instituted and maintained this proceeding to delay respondent in collecting unpaid Federal income tax that petitioner owes to the United States. Petitioner has wasted the Court’s and respondent’s limited resources and deserves a substantial penalty. We will, therefore, require petitioner to pay a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) of $15,000.” Order 5/23/19, at p. 6.

Ya think he paid? Nah, so IRS gave James a NITL, and Appeals gave him a NOD, both at no extra charge. James petitions, but CSTJ Lewis (“Wotta Name!”) Carluzzo, taking judicial notice of James’ antics in the 3596-28L case as set forth in the record thereof, isn’t buying it.

“Although petitioner did not reference the requirements by statute, it is clear that his position is based upon respondent’s obligations under section 6751(b). That statute requires supervisory approval of a penalty imposed by respondent before the penalty can be assessed. Petitioner’s reliance upon that statute, however, is misplaced. Section 6751(b) applies to penalties imposed by respondent. The penalty here in dispute was imposed by Court order.” Order, 12818-22L, at p. 5.

Boss Hoss, back to the stable. Levy sustained.

But I still question what authorizes an IRS levy to collect this penalty. Section 6673(a)(1) says “the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.” That Judge Halpern did. And IRS routinely enforces Tax Court decisions…when it comes to taxes, and add-ons, chops, and interest pertaining to taxes. But Section 6673 relates to tactics that impair the orderly proceedings of Tax Court, which is independent of Treasury and the IRS. Nowhere can I find a statute authorizing IRS to act as a collection agent for Federal Courts, be they Article Ones or Article Threes. Doesn’t the US Marshal Service act as would a State Court marshal or sheriff in levying on property pursuant to court order, decision, or judgment, per 28USC§564?

What am I missing here?

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not turning my blog into a school for protesters, wits, wags, wiseacres, rounders or dodgers. Nor am I playing the clown, at least not intentionally. But I am a lawyer, and have been…it’ll be 56 years next month. A Constitutional government means even the aforesaid, and worse, are entitled to due process of law.

I would be most obliged to be shown by what statute IRS has jurisdiction to collect a Section 6673 penalty.

  1. I’m pretty sure 6671 does the trick.


  2. Mr Richmond, you got it! I learn a lot on this blog.


  3. Mr Richmond, Your comment really clarified my thinking. Section 6671 makes perfect sense, and Als Ob (as if) really works for collecting Section 6673 chops. All, or almost all, frivolites who collect a Section 6673 chop also owe some combination or permutation of tax, add-ons, chops, and interest. It makes no sense for the US Marshal Service to try collecting the Section 6673, while at the same time IRS is trying to collect the tax etc., from the same stash, and then have IRS and the Marshal fight over who gets what. Section 6671 puts all the work on IRS.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: