Back last September, I blogged how STJ Diana L (“The Taxpayer’s Friend”) Leyden dealt with frivolites who persisted in frivoling. See my blogpost “The Shortest Way With Dissenters,” 9/15/22. Took STJ Di seven (count ’em, seven) pages.

Judge Pugh plays a Defoe gambit of her own, and sends off Darcy-Mae Englert, T. C. Memo. 2023-38, filed 3/22/23, in a mere four (count ’em, four) pages, with a sustained deficiency, and a $1K Section 6673 chop at no extra charge. No somber reasoning, but copious citation of precedent.

Judge Pugh has a template for the entire Bench when confronted by the all-zeroes, my-wages-aren’t-taxable jive. I reprint it here as a public service.

“In general, we do not address frivolous arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see, e.g., Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163 (2003), aff’d per curiam without published opinion, No. 03-3157, 2004 WL 7318960 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2004); Rowlee v. Commissioner,  80 T.C. 1111, 1120 (1983) (rejecting the taxpayer’s claim that he is not a person liable for tax); Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35 (laying out and rejecting a litany of frivolous positions), aff’d, 659 F. App’x 440 (9th Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s assertion that her wages are not income has been identified by the Secretary as a “frivolous position[].” I.R.S. Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, 609. And courts have repeatedly done the same. See, e.g., Walker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-63; Briggs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-86; Lovely v.  Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-135, aff’d, 642 F. App’x 268 (4th Cir.  2016).

“Petitioner is subject to tax under the Internal Revenue Code.  Petitioner repeatedly asked for legal and statutory proof that her wages are taxable. These are but a few of the cases that have rejected arguments that she has raised. Applying the law to the facts of this case, we find that petitioner received taxable wages… and we sustain respondent’s deficiency determination.” T. C. Memo. 20-23-38, at p. 3.

Darcy-Mae frivoled even after being warned at trial to read Notice 2010-33 before sending in her post-trial brief. “Even after reading Notice 2010-33 as we advised, petitioner did not heed its warning: she submitted the same frivolous arguments post trial. We also warned petitioner at trial that we would take into account everything she said at trial and submitted in writing posttrial when we considered whether to impose the section 6673 penalty. Therefore, we will impose a penalty of $1,000 under section 6673(a)(1) on petitioner for continuing to take frivolous positions.” T. C. Memo. 2023-38, at p. 4.

Build a record. Lay out the law. That’s how to chop frivolites.