Wheeler Redux

[LPC]

The name of Charles Rayment Wheeler has graced this forum before, and now he gets a return appearance in a Tax Court memorandum decision in which he draws the well-deserved maximum penalty of $25,000 for his nonsense.

T.C. Memo. 2010-188

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CHARLES RAYMOND WHEELER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 23596-07. Filed August 25, 2010.

Charles Raymond Wheeler, pro se.
Philip E. Blondin, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax for 2002, 2004, and 2005 as follows:

Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6651(a)(2) Sec. 6654(a)
2002 $5,357 $1,079.55 $1,199.50 $158.26
2004 5,453 1,117.35 [1] 142.57
2005 5,589 1,151.78 [1] 203.28

[1] The addition to tax will continue to accrue from the due date of the return at a rate of 0.5 percent for each month, or fraction thereof, of nonpayment, not exceeding 25 percent.

The deficiencies are attributable to petitioner’s failure to report pension income he received from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the military’s paymaster, and modest amounts of dividend income in 2004 and 2005 and interest income in each year. The only bona fide issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 and, if so, how much that penalty should be. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Background

None of the facts have been stipulated, even though the material facts are not fairly in dispute. See Rule 91(a). Petitioner resided in Colorado at the time he filed his petition.

This is one of six cases brought by petitioner docketed in this Court. Since at least 1994, petitioner has failed to file timely Federal income tax returns, relying on a variety of repetitious and frivolous arguments. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200 (2006) (determining petitioner’s liability for 2003), affd. 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008); Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-109 (determining petitioner’s liabilities for 1994 through 2001), affd. 528 F.3d 773 (10th Cir. 2008). In docket No. 15205-08L, he challenged collection actions for 1994 through 2001 and 2003; summary judgment was granted against petitioner in that case on March 25, 2009, with the Court concluding that “Petitioner has failed to raise bona fide issues or any genuine issue relating to a material fact.” That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on December 15, 2009. Wheeler v. Commissioner, 356 Fed. Appx. 188 (10th Cir. 2009). In docket No. 615-10, he challenges a notice of deficiency for 2006.

On June 29, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prepared substitutes for returns pursuant to section 6020(b) using information reported by third-party payors that included payments from DFAS to petitioner of $41,083, $42,530, and $43,678 for 2002, 2004, and 2005, respectively. The notice of deficiency was sent on July 9, 2007.

The early history of this case is recounted in an Order and Order to Show Cause (O&OSC) served January 11, 2008, in part as follows:

Petitioner timely filed a petition for redetermination. The petition was frivolous and groundless.

Thereafter, following the filing of respondent’s motion to dismiss and the Court’s Order dated November 28, 2007, requiring the filing of a proper amended petition, petitioner filed an amended petition. The amended petition was frivolous and groundless.

On January 7, 2008, petitioner filed a second amended petition. Other than the preamble, paragraphs 1., 3., and possibly 21., the second amended petition is frivolous and groundless, and it will be struck from the record except for the preamble and the three specified paragraphs.

Paragraph 21. of the second amended petition states as follows: “The respondent further erred by failing to include any deductions or credits for property taxes, mortgage interest, cost of producing labor, etc.” This allegation fails to specifically identify the amount of each particular deduction to which petitioner thinks he is entitled; it also seeks to avoid requisite specificity by use of the word “etc.”. Finally, it suggests that there is some allowable deduction for “cost of producing labor”, when respondent’s determination of income reflects only passive income, i.e., pensions, dividends, and interest income. In short, the paragraph 21. is contrary to Rule 34(b)(4) and (5), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, as well as the Court’s Order dated November 28, 2007, requiring the filing of a proper amended petition.

At no time has petitioner denied receipt of DFAS retirement income, dividends, or interest income, nor has petitioner at any time alleged receiving DFAS retirement income, dividends, or interest income in any amount less than that determined by respondent in the July 9, 2007, notice of deficiency. See Parker v. Commissioner, 117 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 1997); White v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-459. Similarly, at no time has petitioner denied that he failed to file income tax returns for the years in issue, nor has he alleged that such failure was due to what would constitute reasonable cause and not willful neglect. The same may be said regarding the additions to tax under I.R.C. section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay tax. Further, at no time has petitioner denied that he failed to pay estimated tax for the years in issue, nor has he alleged that such failure was excused by any legitimate statutory exception.

The frivolous and groundless nature of petitioner’s pleadings suggest that he instituted, and is maintaining, the present action primarily for purposes of delay. In this regard, I.R.C. section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. See Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71-72 (7th Cir. 1986); Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-1418 (5th Cir. 1984). Petitioner is certainly aware of that section, having previously been the recipient of a $3,000 penalty under I.R.C. section 6673(a)(1) in his prior case, reported at T.C. Memo. 2006-109 (May 22, 2006), and a $1,500 penalty under I.R.C. section 6673 in his other prior case, reported at 127 T.C. 200, 212-214 (December 6, 2006). Notwithstanding the imposition of these penalties, petitioner remains undeterred.[1]

[1] Given the fact that petitioner’s military retirement income provides a ready source for enforced collection by respondent, petitioner’s persistence in pursuing a tax protest agenda is inexplicable. In any event, given the further fact that petitioner’s military retirement income is funded by taxpayer dollars, petitioner’s persistence in pursuing a tax protest agenda is inexcusable.

The O&OSC ordered petitioner to file a further amendment setting forth “each and every specific deduction and credit to which he thinks he is entitled and the amount of each such deduction and credit.” The O&OSC further directed petitioner to show cause why
the Court should not impose a penalty of $10,000, or some greater amount not in excess of $25,000, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).

Petitioner filed his third amended petition on February 13, 2008, along with a memorandum in which he challenged the preparation of section 6020(b) returns in this case. The O&OSC was discharged, and the case was subsequently set for trial in Denver, Colorado, on February 23, 2009. Petitioner appeared but claimed that he was not prepared for trial as a result of an accident and other physical ailments. Respondent moved for dismissal of the case and a penalty under section 6673. The Court permitted petitioner to file a response to the motion and ultimately denied the motion, allowing petitioner another opportunity to pursue his claimed deductions and credits. The case was thereafter set for trial in Denver on May 17, 2010.

At no time before or during the proceedings on May 17, 2010, did petitioner substantiate any deductions or dispute the receipt of the income that was included in the statutory notice. He relied solely on arguments about tax return filing requirements, preparation of substitutes for returns, and procedures for determination of tax deficiencies and additions to tax. At the time of trial, petitioner raised various objections to exhibits that should have been stipulated, and the Court ruled on those objections. The exhibits received in evidence were official and business records reflecting the reporting of petitioner’s income, the preparation of substitutes for returns under section 6020(b), and petitioner’s failure to file returns for the years in issue. This evidence satisfied respondent’s burden of production under section 7491(c). See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001).

Petitioner pleaded for time to file a posttrial brief. He was warned by the Court that he had not presented a meritorious or relevant argument to that time, but he was allowed to file a
brief.

Discussion

In his posttrial brief, petitioner asserts misguided arguments about burden of proof, attacks the Court’s rulings during trial, and claims that the prior rulings of the Court that denied summary dismissal of his case were rulings accepting his arguments. In essence, he asserts that determination of his liabilities for 2002, 2004, and 2005 has not been and cannot be accomplished.

Petitioner has never raised a reasonable dispute with respect to the income reported by third parties for the years in issue. Contrary to petitioner’s claims, respondent was not required to produce witnesses. See sec. 6201(d). Although in his prior cases deficiencies were reduced as a result of concessions by respondent, no evidence in this case would justify any reductions. Petitioner has not shown reasonable cause for his failure to file returns or to pay tax and has not shown an exception to the requirement that he make estimated tax payments. The additions to tax determined in the statutory notice are appropriate.

Although the Court previously indulged petitioner’s pleas for more time and his claims that he was entitled to deductions and credits, at this stage it is apparent that his consistent strategy has been to delay determination of his liabilities without any intent to abandon the arguments that have been characterized throughout as frivolous, irrelevant, and otherwise totally lacking in merit. Petitioner’s only authority for his arguments is his own convoluted reading of various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the Internal Revenue Manual, official IRS transcripts, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and cases cited out of context. Because the Court advised him that his interpretations were erroneous, he asserts that the Court is biased against pro se taxpayers. He claims that he was prevented from presenting his case at trial “for fear of threatened retribution”--an argument similar to one raised in a prior appeal that he entered into a stipulation because “‘the spectre of sanctions hung close over [his] head’”. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 528 F.3d at 779. Petitioner’s repetitious rhetoric claiming victimization has no credibility.

Petitioner’s contentions are merely stale and recycled versions of unsuccessful arguments that he has made since 1994. See id. at 776. Under these circumstances, we are not compelled to address at length his latest concoctions. To do so would be to encourage the dilatory conduct that he has employed throughout the history of this case and would neither dissuade petitioner nor provide useful guidance to taxpayers with legitimate cases. The Court’s attempts at trial to direct petitioner to relevant issues and to explain the errors in his arguments are cited by petitioner in attacking the Court. As the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously remarked: “We are confronted here with [a taxpayer] who simply [refuses] to accept the judgments of the courts.” Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

Petitioner was penalized $1,500 in each of three prior docketed cases. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. at 214; Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-109. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in affirming the decision entered pursuant to Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200 (2006), noted that his appeal was frivolous and that sanctions might be awarded, but declined to do so because of dissatisfaction with respondent’s request for an $8,000 lump-sum award. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 521 F.3d at 1291-1292. In the appeal from the decision entered pursuant to Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-109, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit awarded a sanction of $4,000 against petitioner. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 528 F.3d at 785.

Petitioner was warned in the January 11, 2008, O&OSC of the likelihood of a penalty between $10,000 and $25,000 under section 6673 in this case. Petitioner has not cured the defects in his approach identified in the portions of that O&OSC quoted above, and the conclusion that he has maintained this action primarily for delay is now unavoidable. His noncompliance with the tax laws has continued for well over a decade and after repeated rejections of his frivolous arguments in judgments of this Court and the Court of Appeals rendered years before this case was submitted. A penalty in the maximum amount of $25,000 is appropriate when lesser amounts have not deterred a taxpayer’s defiance of the tax laws and of the rulings of the courts. See, e.g., Tinnerman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-150; Davenport v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-248. Such a penalty is justified here, and the decision in this case will include a determination that petitioner owes to the United States a penalty of $25,000.

For the reasons explained above,
Decision will be entered for respondent.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So Wheeler's about to become destitute - but look how long he's had a free ride while supporting his "legal hobby."

[Dr. Caligari]

The money quote:

Petitioner’s repetitious rhetoric claiming victimization has no credibility.

[.]

Let's see, start a dispute over a liability of about $21K which you have absolutely no possibility whatsoever of winning and turn the total owed into $46K. Brilliant.

[Gregg]

Let's see, start a dispute over a liability of about $21K which you have absolutely no possibility whatsoever of winning and turn the total owed into $46K. Brilliant.

Yeah, but he has managed to keep a federal court tied up for 16 years. Also, should he not owe interest on the original taxes and penalties for the whole time? What's the vig on $21k for 15 years these days?

[LPC]

Let's see, start a dispute over a liability of about $21K which you have absolutely no possibility whatsoever of winning and turn the total owed into $46K. Brilliant.

And don't forget that your primary source of income is a government pension that the IRS can easily garnish.

From a footnote in the quoted order:

Given the fact that petitioner’s military retirement income provides a ready source for enforced collection by respondent, petitioner’s persistence in pursuing a tax protest agenda is inexplicable. In any event, given the further fact that petitioner’s military retirement income is funded by taxpayer dollars, petitioner’s persistence in pursuing a tax protest agenda is inexcusable.

What Wheeler is doing is so insane that there's really no metaphor or aphorism that covers it. The fable of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind, or you could say that he is cutting off his nose to spite the hand that feeds him.

[Pangea]

If I remember correctly, I worked for a company that dealt with this guy. Was he on the run? I remember a man who would call but would never leave a return number because he didn't want to be traced. Very cloak and dagger. I'm not positive it was him...it's been a few years. I think he used the nickname Chuck.

[LPC]

If I remember correctly, I worked for a company that dealt with this guy. Was he on the run? I remember a man who would call but would never leave a return number because he didn't want to be traced. Very cloak and dagger. I'm not positive it was him...it's been a few years. I think he used the nickname Chuck.

I don't think that he's ever been accused of a crime (or at least there's no federal criminal proceedings against him, and no news reports I can find that link him to criminal charges), but he might have been dodging civil process servers, or he might be just paranoid. It would fit the stereotype.

And a somewhat belated welcome to Quatloos.

[Pangea]

I don't think that he's ever been accused of a crime (or at least there's no federal criminal proceedings against him, and no news reports I can find that link him to criminal charges), but he might have been dodging civil process servers, or he might be just paranoid. It would fit the stereotype.

And a somewhat belated welcome to Quatloos.

Hmmm, then I think I'm thinking about someone else. The one I'm thinking of was "wanted" in the criminal sense of the word.

Thanks for the welcome. I have some specific interests here but I do enjoy reading what these other wackos are up to. Some of them are seriously challenged. I think that it is the followers, mostly, that are challenged. The leaders are crooks.

I also think that many MANY of the people who post here are so cryptically and sarcastically witty that they should be writing books.

[Gregg]

I also think that many MANY of the people who post here are so cryptically and sarcastically witty that they should be writing books.

He he he, if you'll read a little more you'll find out that a few of us have written books, but until a great event allegedly involving a cat with a melon helmet, the subject of writing books is a whole 'nother story....

[jcolvin2]

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-9005.pdf

For prior coverage:
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... it=Wheeler

[LPC]

Trying to be tidy, I merged the citation of the circuit court opinion with the thread discussing the Tax Court opinion that was appealed.

[jcolvin2]

Back to the Tax Court for another section 6673 penalty (a $25,000 prize for repeat offenders):

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

T.C. Memo. 2011-278
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CHARLES R. WHEELER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 615-10. Filed November 23, 2011.

Charles Raymond Wheeler, pro se.
Philip E. Blondin, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HAINES, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,939 and additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a) of $1,203, $748, and $250, respectively, for 2006.1 The deficiency is attributable to petitioner’s failure to report pension income of $45,459 he received from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), dividend income of $534, and interest income of $3. The only bona fide issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section 6673 and, if so, how much that penalty should be.

Background

Petitioner is litigious and has an extensive history before this Court.2 In each instance, petitioner has relied on a variety of repetitious and frivolous arguments. This case is no different. Petitioner resided in Colorado at the time he filed his petition.

On December 22, 2010, the Court filed respondent’s requests for admissions, which had been served on petitioner 2 days earlier. Petitioner failed to respond in a timely manner, and pursuant to Rule 90(c), each matter set forth in the requests for admissions was deemed admitted 30 days after the date of service.3 We adopt those admissions as our own findings and incorporate them herein by this reference.

In 2006 petitioner received $45,459 in military retirement payments from DFAS, $534 of dividends, and $3 of interest. Petitioner is entitled to withholding credits of $594 for 2006. Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 2006. As a result, on August 3, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prepared a substitute for return pursuant to section 6020(b) using information reported by third-party payors. The notice of deficiency was sent on October 5, 2009.

At no time before or during trial did petitioner attempt to substantiate any deduction or dispute the receipt of income that was included in the statutory notice. At all times petitioner has relied solely on frivolous arguments about tax return filing requirements, preparation of substitutes for returns, and procedures for determination of tax deficiencies and additions to tax. Petitioner requested permission and was allowed to file a posttrial brief. Petitioner’s posttrial brief sets forth a misguided argument that respondent failed to properly prepare a substitute for return for 2006 pursuant to section 6020(b) and failed to provide petitioner with his due process rights.

Discussion

The Commissioner’s determinations in the notice of deficiency are generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving them incorrect. See Rule 142(a)(1).

Petitioner has admitted to receiving $45,459 in military retirement payments from DFAS, $534 of dividends, and $3 of interest in 2006. He has failed to present any argument for why these amounts should not be included in his 2006 taxable income. We therefore sustain respondent’s determinations with respect to
petitioner’s deficiency.

With respect to the additions to tax, petitioner has not shown reasonable cause for his failure to file returns or pay tax and has not shown an exception to the requirement that he make estimated tax payments. The additions to tax determined in the statutory notice are appropriate.

Petitioner continues to take up this Court’s valuable time and resources with frivolous and irrelevant arguments. To expand upon his contentions is simply not necessary. As this Court stated recently in Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-188: “To do so would be to encourage the dilatory conduct that * * * [petitioner] has employed throughout the history of this case and would neither dissuade petitioner nor provide useful guidance to taxpayers with legitimate cases.”

A penalty in the maximum amount of $25,000 is appropriate when lesser amounts have not deterred a taxpayer’s defiance of the tax laws and of the rulings of the courts. See, e.g., Tinnerman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-150; Davenport v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-248. Petitioner was penalized $1,500 in each of three prior docketed cases. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 214 (2006), affd. 521 F.3d 1289 (10th
Cir. 2008); Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-109, affd. 528 F.3d 773 (10th Cir. 2008). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in affirming the decision entered pursuant to Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200 (2006), noted that his
appeal was frivolous and that sanctions might be awarded, but declined to do so because of dissatisfaction with respondent’s request for an $8,000 lump-sum award. Wheeler v. Commissioner, 521 F.3d at 1291-1292. In the appeal from the decision entered
pursuant to Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-109, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit awarded a sanction of $4,000 against petitioner. Wheeler v. Commissioner, 528 F.3d at 785.

Most recently, in Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010- 188, affd. Fed. Appx. (10th Cir., Nov. 1, 2011), we imposed the maximum penalty allowed of $25,000. Further, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit awarded the Commissioner a lump-sum sanction of $6,000. Petitioner seems to remain undeterred in his defiance of his Federal tax obligations. We again find that a $25,000 penalty is justified. The decision in this case will include a determination that petitioner owes to the United States a penalty of $25,000.

In reaching these holdings, the Court has considered all arguments made and, to the extent not mentioned, concludes that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended for the years at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

2 See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200 (2006) (redetermining petitioner’s liability for 2003), affd. 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008), Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-109 (redetermining petitioner’s liabilities for 1994 through 2001), affd. 528 F.3d 773 (10th Cir. 2008), Wheeler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-188 (redetermining petitioner’s liabilities for 2002, 2004 and 2005), affd. Fed. Appx. (10th Cir., Nov. 1, 2011). In Wheeler v. Commissioner, docket No. 15205-08L, he challenged collection actions for 1994 through 2001 and 2003; summary judgment was granted against petitioner in that case on Mar. 25, 2009, with the Court concluding that he failed to “raise bona fide issues or any genuine issue relating to a material fact”. That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Dec. 15, 2009. Wheeler v. Commissioner, 356 Fed. Appx. 188 (10th Cir. 2009).

3 On Mar. 7, 2011, 1 week before calendar call, the Court received and filed petitioner’s motion to enlarge time to file his responses to respondent’s request for admissions and lodged his responses to respondent’s request for admissions. At trial the Court denied petitioner’s motion.

[Kestrel]

Back to the Tax Court for another section 6673 penalty (a $25,000 prize for repeat offenders):

T.C. Memo. 2011-278
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CHARLES R. WHEELER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 615-10. Filed November 23, 2011.

Charles Raymond Wheeler, pro se.
Philip E. Blondin, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HAINES, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,939 and additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a) of $1,203, $748, and $250, respectively, for 2006.1 The deficiency is attributable to petitioner’s failure to report pension income of $45,459 he received from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)...

I was just thinking about the size of my military pension check relative to this bozo's, which prompted me to try to figure out what rank he was when he retired.

I pulled up the FY 2005 military pay chart and did a little math.

Wheeler, if he was enlisted, retired in 2005 or earlier as an E-9 with 30 years of service: Sergeant Major, Master Chief Petty Officer, Master Gunnery Sergeant, or Chief Master Sergeant (depending on the service). That's as high a rank as you can rise to in the enlisted grades.

If Wheeler was an officer and retired in 2005 or earlier, he retired as an O-4 with 30 years or an O-6 with 20 years (both of which are unlikely) or as an O-5 with about 22 years. An O-5 is a Commander in the Navy and a Lieutenant Colonel in the other services.

You don't get promoted to E-9 or O-5 and retire with full pension benefits by being stupid.

Clearly this fool had the brains to know better, and had every other rational reason as well. For him to try to convince the court that he wholeheartedly believed his frivolous arguments was disingenuous from the get-go.

Glad the court recognized that too. Next step: Wheeler is about to find out that the IRS CAN and DOES levy on military pension payments.

[JamesVincent]

(fingers crossed) Please let him be an officer, please let him be an officer, not a non-com, please. Do I have to put on my high heels and click 3 times?

[.]

Let's see, he's got an approximately 8K deficiency for '06 (including routine penalties amounting to about 2.2K,) probably similar in amount to his previous lost TC contests. He didn't want to cough up the 5-6K he should have, which would have avoided the 2.2K of penalties.

He's managed to turn his relatively minor amounts owed into far larger liabilities by insisting on acting like an ignorant moron, repeatedly.

He's now suffered court sanctions between the Tax Court and the 10th Circuit of 25K, 25K, 6K, 4K, and 1.5K times three. Sanctioned (at least) 7 times. That's almost 65 unnecessary K, most or all of which probably remains unpaid. Most people don't make an appearance on a Tax Court or appellate court docket in their lifetimes, yet here is this idiot apparently trying to set a record.

There could even be a 5K friv-pen or two directly from the IRS in the last few years that hasn't yet been futilely litigated, but no doubt will be.

At what cumulative-sanctions-point can it be declared that you're officially a total moron? 100K? 500K? A million? Perhaps an interesting due process question.

The guy is the poster child for raising the maximum sanction to about 250K. Not to mention barring the filing of any actions by anyone who hasn't fully paid previous sanctions.

[Kestrel]

Let's see, he's got an approximately 8K deficiency for '06 (including routine penalties amounting to about 2.2K,) probably similar in amount to his previous lost TC contests. He didn't want to cough up the 5-6K he should have, which would have avoided the 2.2K of penalties.

He's managed to turn his relatively minor amounts owed into far larger liabilities by insisting on acting like an ignorant moron, repeatedly.

He's now suffered court sanctions between the Tax Court and the 10th Circuit of 25K, 25K, 6K, 4K, and 1.5K times three. Sanctioned (at least) 7 times. That's almost 65 unnecessary K, most or all of which probably remains unpaid. Most people don't make an appearance on a Tax Court or appellate court docket in their lifetimes, yet here is this idiot apparently trying to set a record.

Want to bet he's got similar issues for tax years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010?

No matter. The IRS will just levy his net military retirement over the next few years for every dime above his standard deduction and personal exemptions. And if he gets another job they'll levy that income too. Of course, he'll still owe income taxes on the money they confiscate, so he'd better make sure his current W-4 withholdings cover that debt.

IRS wage levies typically don't leave the taxpayer with enough money to pay for car loans and mortgages. With dividends of $500 and interest of $3, he doesn't appear to have much in investments and savings. His car had better be able to last for several more years. I wonder if he has any equity in his house.

Bankruptcy could be used by ordinary mortals to get a handle on such problems. But for superhuman heroes like Wheeler bankruptcy isn't an option. There's a little matter of the bankruptcy requirement that all recent tax returns be filed.

[JamesVincent]

I wonder, if hes got such a huge issue with little things like taxes, hows hes other little bills like mortgages and the like faring. It would seem to be part and parcel to someone who doesnt want to pay one to not want to pay the other.

[Gregg]

I'm sure it's because I've spent the last week myself getting an estate ready, but the first thing that hit me on reading this is if this nutjob has kids, he's really doing a big favor for them in general and especially if one of them is the executor of his will.

Imagine walking in to a lawyer and having to pay up front a few grand so that the IRS can immediately take all the assets.

And after just writing that, I wish someone would tell all these career asshats to consider this when they go the "I'll just fight them for the rest of my life" route.