Cryer in Tax Court

[Demosthenes]

Docket# 008118-09
Tommy K. Cryer
PRO SE Pro Se
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 index entries for this case.

No. Date Filings and Proceedings Action/Status Date Served Cer.M Document
0001 04/02/2009 PETITION Filed:Fee Paid
R 04/06/2009

0002 04/02/2009 REQUEST for Place of Trial at New Orleans, LA
R 04/06/2009

[LPC]

So, what kind of petition? A petition to challenge a notice of deficiency, or a petition to challenge an adverse determination from a collection due process hearing?

The former is more likely than the latter, but you can never tell.

I'm looking forward to the demand for a jury trial.

[Famspear]

Oh, fiddlesticks! And I thought all the tax deniers had told me that Cryer's criminal tax acquittal meant that there was no law making him liable for the federal income tax! Yet Cryer is still litigating federal taxes.

Hey, maybe the Internal Revenue Service is just taking some sort of frivolous position.....

[Thule]

Demo, any chance Red Crayons will be updated with info from the :Brown-case?

[ASITStands]

So, what kind of petition? A petition to challenge a notice of deficiency, or a petition to challenge an adverse determination from a collection due process hearing?

The former is more likely than the latter, but you can never tell.

I'm looking forward to the demand for a jury trial.

Generally, a petition to challenge an adverse determination after collection due process has a docket number with the letter "L" following. Docket No. 8118-09L That's not the case here.

On that basis, it would appear this is a petition to challenge a notice of deficiency.

It's called, "Petition for Redetermination of a Deficiency," and the other, "Petition for Lien Action under Code Section 6320(c)" or "Petition for Levy Action under Code Section 6330(c)."

By filing a "Petition for Redetermination of a Deficiency," if he's not ready to prepare a return, the court will adjudicate and establish the amounts in the notice of deficiency.

You can challenge a deficiency by petitioning tax court or filing a return. Those are the only options, as once the IRS has made a determination, it will stand until you make your own.

Just a little common sense for Tommy or any tax deniers reading this thread.

There's no other way around it. If the IRS has determined a deficiency, the only way you can challenge it is to make your own determination by preparing an income tax return.

[Demosthenes]

Looks like he's disputing Notices of Deficiency for nine tax years...

Ouch.

[LPC]

I've added a poll.

[Cpt Banjo]

If he raises the same ridiculous arguments he did in his brief in his criminal case, can the government ask for 9 years' worth of sanctions?

[LPC]

The Tax Court is supposed to be implementing a PACER-like system that would allow for public access to pleadings, but we're obviously not there yet.

I was curious enough about a Tax Court petition once to ask the clerk to mail me a copy, for which I paid a fee. I might do the same in this case, but I don't want to do it if Demo or Famspear or someone else is going to do it.

So who's going to get a copy of the petition to share?

[Demosthenes]

I might do the same in this case, but I don't want to do it if Demo or Famspear or someone else is going to do it.

So who's going to get a copy of the petition to share?

Already in the works.

[LPC]

The Tax Court is supposed to be implementing a PACER-like system that would allow for public access to pleadings, but we're obviously not there yet.

Correction: Re-reading the relevant press release, it looks to me that on-line access to filings is only for parties and their counsel, and public on-line access will continue to be limited to dockets and opinions.

[ASITStands]

I might do the same in this case, but I don't want to do it if Demo or Famspear or someone else is going to do it.

So who's going to get a copy of the petition to share?

Already in the works.

What's the rule on privacy in these matters?

Pleadings are available in other cases. I had not known them to be available in tax court.

Interesting. And, yes, I'd like to see the Petition. Wonder if he used one of the Petition Kits. There's an updated kit that provides more opportunity for challenge of law and facts.

The older Petition Kit is a one-pager that leaves a whole lot to the imagination.

I can't make up my mind in the poll. I'm torn between raising non-frivolous issues and losing and raising frivolous issues and backing down, but still losing. It'll probably be a mix.

[LPC]

What's the rule on privacy in these matters?

Rule 27 protects Social Security numbers, dates of birth, names of minor children, and account numbers on financial accounts.

[grixit]

Looks like he's disputing Notices of Deficiency for nine tax years...

Ouch.

That means he faces up to 9 frivpens.

[ASITStands]

Looks like he's disputing Notices of Deficiency for nine tax years...

Ouch.

That means he faces up to 9 frivpens.

In tax court proceedings, penalties imposed for frivolous or groundless positions are assigned under IRC § 6673, particularly, subsection (a)(1)(B), and it will be an aggregate sum.

It will not be nine frivolous penalties but one amount consistent with the circumstances.

Often the court takes into account whether it's the first time the Petitioner has made the argument or whether the Petitioner had been warned previously or should have known.

And, the penalty is usually consistent with the amount of deficiency or penalties found under other sections, such as IRC § 6651(a) and IRC § 6654. It might also depend on whether the court finds other penalties for accuracy and fraud under IRC § 6662 and IRC § 6663.

I would expect a sanction under IRC § 6673 in the $15,000+ range. Could be more.

[Judge Roy Bean]

What's the rule on privacy in these matters?

Pleadings are available in other cases. I had not known them to be available in tax court....

IMHO the issue is redaction of SSANs.

[LPC]

Often the court takes into account whether it's the first time the Petitioner has made the argument or whether the Petitioner had been warned previously or should have known.

If Cryer goes into Tax Court with frivolous arguments and presses them without backing down, I think he will be sanctioned because:

1. His arguments will probably rehashes of the same arguments he made in his criminal case to try to get the indictment dismissed, so he's already lost once in court; and

2. He's a lawyer and should know better.

But it's not a sure thing.

[ASITStands]

I agree with Dan's reasoning.

If Tommy Cryer attempts to make the same arguments made in his criminal case, tax court will consider them frivolous, and though he prevailed against the criminal sanction, it was due to a lack of willfulness and not because his arguments prevailed against the income tax.

He's facing the question of whether he received gross income subject to the tax, whether a deficiency exists in his reporting, or lack thereof, and whether he'll make a candid report.

As stated earlier, if he does not prepare a return now, he'll find that tax court will uphold the determinations in notice of deficiency, and the amounts of liability will be adjudicated.

That's important, because adjudicated amounts are seldom reversible. It's very rare.

[ASITStands]

By the way, Tommy Cryer has an opportunity to avoid the fate of Vernice Kuglin.

Kuglin's tax court case came after assessment and collection due process. The stipulated decision determined how the amounts were going to be collected and/or paid by Vernice.

Tommy Cryer has the opportunity to obtain a much lower assessment by cooperating.

[Famspear]

In his criminal case, the U.S. District Court rejected Cryer's fourth motion to dismiss, in which Cryer contended that his income -- which was derived through the practice of law in Louisiana -- was not "taxable income" as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, ruling the contention to be "without merit." So, Cryer might be collaterally estopped from re-arguing that issue in the U.S. Tax Court. Whether he is trying to make that argument in Tax Court, I do not know.

As Demo has ordered copies of the goodies from the Tax Court, I wonder if she knows how long it will take them to arrive (?).