Although restitution ordered as part of the sentence of a criminal conviction is collected “in the same manner as if such amount were such tax,” criminal restitution arises from 18 USC §3663(a)(3). Thus, the usual Section 6213 restraints on assessment don’t apply; see Section 6501(c)(11), and Section 6213(b)(5).

Mehlek Dawveed, T. C. Memo. 2023-28, filed3/6/23, took a three-year fall in USDCDMD for Federal false claims, wire fraud, and Section 7212 obstruction. IRS gave him a NFTL and NFTL at no extra charge when he failed to pay up. Mehlek requests a CDP, raises SNOD defenses (a no-go), and his argy-bargy about last-known-address fails, as he timely got the notices and timely petitioned.

Mehlek claims he sent in an OIC, but there are no OICs from criminal restitution. Mehlek also claims he sent in a 1040X, but restitution liability and tax liability aren’t the same. As for an IA, Mehlek never sent in Form 433-A and backups.

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber, who gets his share of such types as Mehlek, is used to this.

“Petitioner’s filings devote little attention to the issues actually raised in respondent’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. His submissions consist largely of cut-and-pasted text, cast in boilerplate legalese, much of which seems to have been downloaded from the internet. He does not allege any genuine dispute of material fact, and we find the case appropriate for summary adjudication.” T. C. Memo. 2023-28, at p. 6.

Since Mehlek can’t challenge his tax liability underlying the restitution order per Section 6201(a)(4), the only standard for review is abuse of discretion, against which Mehlek’s legalese cannot prevail.

His claim that his wife should get innocent spousery fails, as she has to raise it via Form 8857, and she hasn’t. Likewise his claim that he doesn’t own certain realty founders when he can’t produce any evidence of who owns it.

Mehlek has “a potpourri of other arguments,” T. C. Memo. 2023-28, at p. 10, but Judge Scholar Al blows them off.