I’ve commented often enough before now on the seemingly random imposition of Section 6673 chops for frivolity. Now I’m coming to the point of invoking the activist judges on the United States Supreme Court bench, who nowise shy from a bench-emptying intervention.

Louis-Umberto Giannini & Dawn-Michelle Frey, Docket No. 16803-25, filed 5/6/26, have been around the cliché a couple times (hi, Judge Holmes). Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar P{at”) Urda catalogues their prior Tax Court frivoling. A brief docket search shows Lou-U and Dawn got a $1K chop on each of their prior forays.

For more, see my blogposts “Scholar Pat on Frivolites,” 6/23/22, and “A Section 6673 Template,” 7/24/23.

Despite their track record of stale Title B employment tax based arguments, Ch J Scholar Pat devotes five (count ’em, five) pages of his order to a lengthy exposition of the bases of Tax Court jurisdiction, of which Lou-U and Dawn have none.

So Ch J Scholar Pat hits Lou-U and Dawn with a third $1K Section 6673 chop, which is all IRS requested. Obviously Ch J Scholar Pat cannot give more, since that would ambush petitioners.

Why IRS deems such a waste of scarce administrative and judicial resources merits only a $1K chop, which has twice failed to deter Lou-U and Dawn, eludes me. I eagerly await the twice-tagged litigant who challenges a $5K or better chop recommendation from IRS as arbitrary and capricious, when Lou-U and Dawn only got $1K. Sic ’em, Supremes!