The poor ol’ partitive genitive doesn’t stand a chance as that Senior Judge, paragraphed by the Wall Street Journal for his “quirky” writings (see my blogpost “No Method, No Madness,” 6/5/18) has found a “couple quirks” (hi, Judge Holmes) in IRS’ approach to Brendan James Trainor, Docket No. 14996-22, filed 4/19/24, at p. 1.

BJ started with the old Subtitle C – Subtitle A protester jive, conflating employment taxes with income taxes. As Tax Court has no jurisdiction over Subtitle Cs, BJ moved to dismiss his own case.

“Mr. Trainor said when his case was called that he didn’t think ‘there was a one-in-a-million chance’ the Court would grant his motion.

“He is right.

“His motion is denied.” Order, at p. 2.

 Judge Holmes brandishes the Section 6673 yellow card, so BJ and IRS stip the case out. BJ did have salary and wages.

BJ claims the deficiency is what he owes after crediting withholding, but that’s wrong.

“Mr. Trainor evidently misread the notice, in which the IRS determined a deficiency of $9052. As we explained to Mr. Trainor when we called his case, Tax Court redetermines deficiencies which are, roughly speaking, the difference between what a person owes under the Code and what he reports on his return. Because Mr. Trainor had had withholding on his wages, the total amount the IRS says he owes before interest and penalties was $2444. What someone owes is a liability, and is different from a deficiency.” Order, at p. 2. (Emphasis by the Court).

Chops are based on the deficiency, not the liability, so a substantial understatement chop could be a lot more than what actual tax one ultimately owes.

IRS’ problem is Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery for the Section 6662 chop they want to lay on BJ. The SNOD here is a courier without luggage: the CPAF usually attached to any SNOD to show Boss Hossery compliance is missing. And the SNOD uses the buckshot language that the chop is based on negligence or disregard, substantial understatement, overvaluation, or want of economic substance.

“…when the only mention of a penalty under section 6662 is the generic language listing every type of penalty under that section – exactly the language that’s in the notice that the IRS sent to Mr. Trainor – we have to look to any more specific language in the approval form.” Order, at pp. 3-4.

Now IRS could argue electronicution per Section 6751(b)(1)(B); that does apply to the substantial understatement chop. See my blogpost “I Sing The Penalty Electronic – Part Deux,” 2/25/19. Btw, Judge, the case you cite at Order, p. 3, footnote 1 is “Walquist,” not “Wahlquist,” 152 T. C. 3.

But IRS doesn’t argue electronicution in its pleadings or the stip, and has only the Michael Corleone gambit, classical variation, to play.

No chops.