An abbreviated version of Mark Twain’s famous geological putdown gives me the title for this sermonette. IRS counsel are as big fans of summary J as I am. The motion is almost SOP, and stuns most self-representeds into silence. Since Monique E. Franco, Docket No. 33045-21S, filed 2/21/23, never replied to the answer, didn’t contest the Rule 37(c) deemed admissions motion, and didn’t reply to the motion for summary J, it looks like a slam dunk.

Except.

STJ Adam B. (“Sport”) Landy finds IRS’ claim of a Section 6663 fraud chop blocks the shot, as Monique’s petition is sufficient to call for a trial.

“Ms. Franco’s contentions that an amended return was filed without her knowledge, that her signature was forged on this amended return, and that she is entitled to innocent spouse relief are material issues of fact that are in dispute. Consequently, the Commissioner’s motion cannot be granted.” Order, at p. 2.

Where intent is at issue, as it must be in tax fraud cases, a trial is necessary to assess demeanor and credibility. Even a trifling investment of disputed fact is enough.