Bad Day - TP Loses Doubleheader in Tax Court

[jcolvin2]

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/Hi ... CM.WPD.pdf

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/Hi ... CM.WPD.pdf

[Lambkin]

Silly tax court URLs expire after one day. These work:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

[Dr. Caligari]

He sounds like one of Hendrickson's dupes.

[Famspear]

He sounds like one of Hendrickson's dupes.

I was sorta thinkin' that, too. He seemed to have been engaged in a bit of the characteristic Hendrickson Hooey. I like to search these court cases for a mention that the taxpayer was influenced by the Bloviating Blowhard's "Cracking the Code" scam. I believe these are past examples:

1. Scott v. Commissioner, no. 26392-06, United States Tax Court, Bench Op. (June 4, 2008), aff'd, 2009 TNT 213-10, No. 08-4766, 2d Cir. (Nov. 6, 2009).

2. Montero v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 222-17, No. 09-60381, 5th Cir. (May 19, 2009), aff'g no. 023166-07L, U.S. Tax Court (Oct. 28, 2008).

3. Lindberg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-67, No. 5421-08L, U.S. Tax Court (April 6, 2010).

And these, for which I don't have full citations in front of me right now:

4. David and Morena Mills; U.S. Tax Court, case number 003441-08.

5. Louie Elias; U.S. Tax Court, case number 024624-06L.

[jcolvin2]

Also see

Knipp v. CIR, Tax Court Docket No. 18667-10L ("I was there before PEH")
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=50827

Sykes v. CIR, Tax Court Docket No. 10386-11L (knew PEH was in prison)
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=99182
Best part of bench opinion: "Pro se status, however, is not a license to litter the dockets of the federal courts with ridiculous allegations concerning the Code." (citing Parker v. CIR, 117 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 1997))

[Famspear]

Also see

Knipp v. CIR, Tax Court Docket No. 18667-10L ("I was there before PEH")
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=50827

Sykes v. CIR, Tax Court Docket No. 10386-11L (knew PEH was in prison)
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=99182
Best part of bench opinion: "Pro se status, however, is not a license to litter the dockets of the federal courts with ridiculous allegations concerning the Code." (citing Parker v. CIR, 117 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 1997))

You MADE MY DAY!

Two more cases added to the collection! How did I miss 'em??

[jcolvin2]

Pete Hendrickson disciple Clovus Sykes is back for more -gets a 15k section 6673 penalty:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... 2&Todays=Y

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217
CLOVUS M. SYKES, ) SD
)
Petitioner, )
v. ) Docket No. 24394-15.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )
)
Respondent )
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION

In a notice of deficiency dated June 22, 2015, respondent determined that
petitioner is liable for a Federal income tax deficiency of $25,886 for the taxable
year 2012 and additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2), and 6654(a). ¹
The deficiency is attributable to respondent's determination that petitioner failed to report income that he received in the form of taxable distributions from pensions and nonemployee compensation, as reported to respondent by third-party payors. On September 25, 2015, petitioner invoked the Court's jurisdiction by filing a timely petition for redetermination pursuant to section 6213(a). On
November 20, 2015, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State
a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.

By Orders dated December 11, 2015, and May 6, 2016, the Court directed
petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion to dismiss. Those
Orders also invited petitioner to file a proper amended petition setting forth clear
and concise assignments of each and every error that he alleges to have been
committed by respondent in the determination of the deficiency and additions to
tax in dispute.

On May 17, 2016, petitioner filed an amended petition. On May 27, 2016,
respondent filed a second Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim Upon
Which Relief Can Be Granted, wherein respondent also moves to impose a penalty
under IRC section 6673. On July 11, 2016, petitioner filed an Opposition to
respondent's second motion to dismiss. As discussed below, we will grant
respondent's second motion to dismiss and impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant
to section 6673(a).

Discussion

Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed with this Court contain clear and
concise assignments of each and every error that the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and the additions to tax in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that the petition contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts upon which the assignments of error are based. See Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982).

We note that petitioner is no stranger to the Tax Court.2 A review of the petition and amended petition shows that those pleadings are filled with frivolous and groundless arguments and that petitioner has failed to allege any material fact in support of any justiciable claim. Under the circumstances, we see no need to catalog petitioner's arguments and painstakingly address them. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Suffice it to say that petitioner is a taxpayer who is obliged to file Federal income tax returns and pay Federal income tax on compensation and other forms of taxable income. See secs. 1, 61(a); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981). Because the pleadings do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5), we will grant respondent's motion to dismiss.

Section 6673(a)(1) provides that the Tax Court may impose a penalty not to
exceed $25,000 if it appears to the Court that proceedings have been instituted or
maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. The positions advanced by petitioner are similar if not identical to those identified by the Court as frivolous and groundless in pleadings that petitioner filed with the Court in the recent past. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that petitioner instituted this proceeding primarily for the purpose of delay.

Upon due consideration and for cause, it is

ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a
Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed November 20, 2015, is denied as
moot. It is further

ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed May 27, 2016, is granted and this case is dismissed on the ground the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. It is further

ORDERED AND DECIDED that for tax year 2012 petitioner is liable for a Federal income tax deficiency of $25,886, and additions to tax under IRC sections 6651(a)(1), 6651(a)(2), and 6654 of $5,824.35, $3,235.75, and $464.07, respectively.

It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to IRC section 6673(a)(1) of $15,000.

(Signed) Daniel A. Guy, Jr.
Special Trial Judge
ENTERED: JUL 272016


¹ Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for the year in issue.

2 Petitioner has previously filed petitions with the Court at docket Nos.
10386-11L, 18787-12L, 9793-13, and 20594-13.

[Famspear]

Face it. You just knew this had to happen again, eventually......

‘Though he tried to put up a good fight,
It is clear Clovus ain’t seen the light.
No, he won’t learn his lesson;
It’s time for confessin’,
It’s clear that poor Clovus ain’t bright.

He can try just as hard as he might,
But ‘Cracking the Code’ just ain’t right.
To rely upon Pete
Leaves him utterly beat;
Yes, The Law has a terrible bite.

Hendricksonian pontification
Means true Logic just took a vacation!
Pete is wrong on The Law;
C-t-C? It’s a flaw,
And may lead to some incarceration!

[grixit]

Weak!

Try this:

Mister Sykes did what Hendrickson said
And thought that his taxes were shed
He dropped a big load
Out of Cracking the Code
But all that he cracked was his head!

[Famspear]

Mister Sykes did what Hendrickson said
And thought that his taxes were shed
He dropped a big load
Out of Cracking the Code
But all that he cracked was his head!

[The Observer]

Please! Do we really need to descend to Dueling Limericks?

[Famspear]

Please! Do we really need to descend to Dueling Limericks?

Dueling Limericks.....

....soon to be a major motion picture!

[AndyK]

Please! Do we really need to descend to Dueling Limericks?

You probably just issued an invitation.

[JamesVincent]

There once was a man named Famspear
Despite his claim his intent was quite clear
Through his prose inane
He sought to drive us insane
And ride into the sunset with a jeer

[The Observer]

Please! Do we really need to descend to Dueling Limericks?

You probably just issued an invitation.

Of course! I am hoping it results in mortal combat.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Please! Do we really need to descend to Dueling Limericks?

Descend???

How dare you sir!

You should be pun-ished for besmirching the artistry of the limerick.

The gauntlet has been thrown.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The Observer objects to a duel
Of limericks that ridicule fools
He disparages authors
Of limerickian offers
Seems something he missed while in school

[The Observer]

What I said was not observed
By the Judge - my real purpose was served.
This was just really a goad,
To put combatants on a road
To see which of them get unnerved.

[Famspear]

Helllllppp! I can't stopppp!......

All this verbiage succeeds to amaze me!
My perception grows foggy -- and hazy!
All my brain cells are blinkin’;
What the heck am I thinkin’?
All this poetry’s makin’ me crazy!

[JamesVincent]

So you would like to battle
My nerve, it will not rattle
I've been here before
"Open only in time of war"
And I shall slaughter you all like cattle