It was a Torts 101 standby in my young day (and probably still is). In damage suits by persons bitten by an alleged vicious dog, the owner/defendant was allowed to prove that the dog had never bitten anyone before, hence the owner was not on notice of the dog’s alleged propensity, so not required to curb same.

My readers, probably as bored as I am with my retelling of the random imposition of (or refraining from imposing) Section 6673 frivolity chops, have probably already begun rolling their eyes as I tell the tale of Tammy Louise Blaszak, Docket No. 34180-21, filed 5/2/23, an off-the-bencher from STJ Peter (“HB”) Panuthos.

Tammy Louise is one who “advances frivolous constitutional and statutory arguments that her wages are not income subject to federal income tax purposes and that because of her status as a ‘state national’, the IRS does not have any authority over her.” Transcript, at p. 8.

Of course STJ Panuthos “advised petitioner that she might become liable for a penalty under section 6673 and explained the circumstances for the application of that penalty. Despite the Court’s admonishment, petitioner has persisted.” Transcript, at p. 8.

No Section 6673 chop, however.

 IRS asks for and gets the Section 6662(a) five-and-ten if the Rule 155 beancount bears it out.

I note STJ Panuthos didn’t impose the Section 6673 frivolity chop, notwithstanding that “(I)n a prior order, served August 18, 2022, petitioner was admonished for advancing frivolous arguments and we noted that petitioner was involved in a federal district court case in the Western District of Michigan where she was again warned for making similar frivolous arguments.  Blaszak v. United States, No. 1:21-CV-1093, (W.D. Mich. June 10, 2022).” Transcript, at p. 8.

I did note Judge Buch’s grant of a bye to George Luniw, notwithstanding his extensive frivolity record, 5/2/23. See my blogpost “Please Read My Blog,” 4/18/23. And for Judge James S (“Big Jim”) Halpern’s OSC without warning to trusty attorney for the Delgados for some unspecified “intercourse” with IRS at exam, see my blogpost “Why the Chop?” 3/13/23.

Again I have to beg that I be not misunderstood. Judges have to run their own courtrooms. Disruptive behavior and timewasting maneuvers need to be squelched on the spot. I don’t like restrictive guidelines proposed by those who never tried a case to a verdict or represented a live client. But I would propose a one-bite rule for frivolites: one clear warning, explaining the reasons and the consequences for further clowning. If no repentance, then the chop.