No, this is not another of my colleague’s Peter Reilly, CPA, beloved Reg. Section 1.183-2(b) “goofy regulation” cases, with Tennessee Walkers, cutting horses, quarter horses, or nicked-ancestry Graded Stakes winners.

This is yet another case of Taishoff beating a dead (metaphorical) horse, this time a Boss Hoss.

I must repeat yet again, if repetition is indeed necessary, that I am not trying to cram Tax Court Judges and STJs into a Procrustean cliché; judges must control their own courtrooms without looking over their shoulders for enforcement types who never tried a case.

What I have been trying to do is derive a framework sufficiently wide to accommodate the practical needs of judges, and yet with enough structure to avoid the “arbitrary and capricious” claims of the Section 6673 frivolites.

And today I’m stymied by Patricia Hyde, T. C. Memo. 2023-76, filed 6/21/23. Hyde is fighting about her 2006 deficiency, as to which she lost in Tax Court in 2011. Nowise daunted, she tried vacation, and lost. She appealed to 8 Cir, and lost. Of course, she petitioned for cert from the Supremes, and got tossed. Hyde having put up no bond, in 2012 IRS assessed, but waited until 2019 to file a NFTL.

Hyde files for a CDP, and frivols away. Receiving a NOD, she petitions.

Judge Paris, with commendable patience: “Petitioner contends in her Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case under sections 6320 and 6330 because Appeals abused its discretion and issued an invalid notice of determination. The Court disagrees with petitioner. Not only does petitioner misapprehend the effect that granting her Motion would have on her case; the record establishes that all jurisdictional conditions have been met and that the case is properly before this Court. See §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1). Accordingly, the Court will deny petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.” T. C. Memo. 2023-76, at p. 5.

The best is yet to come. In her 2011 visit to Tax Court, Hyde got handed a $3K Section 6673 chop. Hyde now claims that the chop is invalid, because not Boss Hossed per Section 6751(b). This is after she lost her Rule 161, her appeal to 8 Cir, and toss by the Supremes, more than ten (count ’em, ten) years ago.

Judge Paris finally falls back on Benton Williams.

“Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 on a taxpayer whenever it appears that the taxpayer instituted the proceeding primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless. The authority of the Court to impose such a penalty is not subject to the supervisory approval requirement of section 6751(b)(1). Williams v. Commissioner, 151 T.C. 1, 5–10 (2018). This is so because the provision ‘was not intended as a broad restraint mechanism on the Federal judiciary . . . [or] to cover the imposition of penalties that Congress intended could be imposed by courts because of misbehavior by a litigant during the course of a judicial proceeding.” Id. at 10. Accordingly, the Court concludes that petitioner’s assertion that sanctions imposed pursuant to section 6673 must comply with section 6751(b)(1) is wrong and that the section 6673 penalty was assessable contemporaneously with the decision entered in the notice of deficiency case. See §§ 6671(a), 6673(a)(1).” T. C. Memo. 2023-76, at p. 8.

For the Williams story, see my blogpost “Into the Sunset,” 7/3/18.

So why am I telling you this?

Because after all Hyde’s frivolizing, Judge Paris and IRS decide that a computational error in Hyde’s favor was made back in 2011 in reckoning the Section 6654 add-on, and so a Rule 155 beancount must follow, and no Section 6673 for this latest frivolity fest.