I’ve often posted about the need for a clear warning to frivolites at an early stage that Section 6673(a) chops are the price of frivolity. Yes, I’ve also said often that judges must be free to run their own divisions (trial parts) without constant second-guessing or undue restriction.

STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel gets it right in Stacy Hutchings, Docket No. 466-26, filed 5/26/26.

Stacy filed a petition, frivoling; when told to amend, she did, frivoling again. IRS moved to toss for failure to state a claim and to give Stacy a Section 6673(a) chop at no extra charge. Stacy responded to said motion and amended, frivoling again.

Motion to toss granted.

“Although we will not impose a penalty at this time, Ms. Hutchings is invited to review I.R.C. section 6673(a): If it appears to the Court that a petitioner’s position in a proceeding before the Court is frivolous or groundless, then the Court can impose a penalty (not to exceed $25,000) on that petitioner. Ms. Hutchings is advised that it appears to the Court that the position she has taken in her submissions are frivolous or groundless. See, e.g., Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011). Future submissions to the Court advancing a frivolous or groundless position may well result in the imposition of a penalty.” Order, at p. 1.

For the Wnuck story, see my blogpost “One’ll Get You Five,” 5/31/11.