Coppedge - TP craziness is not "Accepted for Value"

[jcolvin2]

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... 8&Todays=Y

Best portions of the oral opinion:

On June 9, 2010, respondent received from petitioner a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, that purports·to be petitioner's 2008 Federal income tax return (return). On the return petitioner (1) reports $315,649.88 as his "taxable income", (2) reports no 2008 Federal income tax liability, and (3) claims a refund for the amount shown as his taxable income. In the middle of the first page of the return are the words "Accepted for Value Returned for Value Settlement and Discharged", twice appear by stamp. Under one of the stamped versions of this language, petitioner's signature appears as "authorized representative". The return is signed by petitioner in the designated area on page two. In the area designated "Your Occupation" petitioner entered "Authorized representative of James Coppedge".

The return obviously "contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect". Section 6702(a) (1) (A). Furthermore, the stamps shown on the first page of the return, and petitioner's attempt to have the amount shown as taxable income refunded to him reflect petitioner's "desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws". Section 6702(a) (2) (B). Consequently, and in due course, the submission of the returns resulted in the assessment of a $5,000 section 6702(a) penalty (underlying liability) against petitioner for 2008.

***

In a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated July 20, 2011 (notice), respondent determined that the proposed collection action is appropriate. The language appearing in the petition filed in response to the notice is so syntactically obscure that but for the fact that the language is contained in a document submitted to the Court by an individual who apparently believes himself not subject to Federal tax laws, the Court would have serious reservations about petitioner's competency to proceed as a self-represented litigant in this proceeding. Be that as it may, a fair reading of the petition, to the extent that we can make any sense from its contents, shows that petitioner challenges the determination made in the notice only because he is challenging the existence of the underlying liability, once again claiming that the liability has been satisfied.

***

All things considered, there is little for us to do in this matter. Petitioner does not suggest that the underlying liability was improperly assessed, or that the return is not a frivolous return within the meaning of section 6702(a); instead, he claims the liability has been satisfied for reasons only meaningful to him.

*Edited at 12:57 pm to correct spelling taxpayer's name.