Winterroth - Tax Court Imposes 6673 on Repeat TPer

[jcolvin2]

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... 6&Todays=Y

Petitioner is no stranger to this Court. He had a collection review matter for 2006
(Docket No. 4804-09L). The Court in that docket sustained the frivolous return penalty under
section 6702 against petitioner. The Court also advised petitioner in the case for 2006 of Notice 2007-30, 2007-1 C.B. 883, in which the Commissioner lists and specifies frivolous positions many of which petitioner raised in the case for 2006 as here for 2007.

Petitioner continued to raise frivolous arguments in this case despite several warnings.
Petitioner asserted that his arguments are based on the Code and Supreme Court cases.
Petitioner's arguments are familiar to this Court and other Federal courts and have been soundly rejected on numerous occasions. By citing, out of context, selected text from the Code, petitioner concludes that he is not liable for Federal income tax on his wages. Petitioner has followed in the footsteps of numerous others who have unsuccessfully attempted to find a way to avoid paying Federal income tax.

Petitioner is pro se and seeks leniency from the Court. Pro se status, however, is not a
license to litter the dockets of the Federal courts with ridiculous allegations. Parker v.
Commissioner, 117 F.3d 785, 787 (5th Cir. 1997). Petitioner's tactics have consumed valuable
Government resources. These tactics should not be condoned. They damage the integrity of the Federal tax litigation system because the time and attention the Court and respondent must devote to these frivolous arguments deprives other taxpayers with genuine controversies. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 412 (1984). When the Court has been faced with groundless arguments that waste the Court's and respondent's limited time and resources, we have consistently found that the taxpayer deserves a penalty under section 6673(a)(1), and that penalty should be substantial if it is to have the desired deterrent effect.

The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled tax principles. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Grasselli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-581. In this proceeding now before the Court, petitioner asserts nothing but frivolous and groundless arguments. It is apparent from the entire record that petitioner instituted or maintained this proceeding primarily, if not exclusively, as a protest against the Federal income tax system and his proceeding in this Court is merely a continuation of petitioner's refusal to acknowledge and satisfy his tax obligations. We are convinced that no purpose would be served in repeating all that has been said about his frivolous and misguided arguments. Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011). We therefore shall require petitioner to pay a penalty of $5,000 pursuant to section 6673(a)(1). In addition, we take this opportunity to admonish petitioner that the Court will consider imposing a greater penalty if petitioner returns to the Court and advances similar arguments in the future.

[LPC]

We are convinced that no purpose would be served in repeating all that has been said about his frivolous and misguided arguments.

Not even for the entertainment value?

[LPC]

The Tax Court has been affirmed by the 9th Circuit. (Judges Schroeder, Hawkins, and Gould seems to have used the July 4 holiday to clear their docket of a lot of crap, because this is the third of their cases I've posted today.)

David K. Winterroth v. Commissioner, No. 11-72377 (9th Cir. 7/5/2012).

DAVID K. WINTERROTH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted June 26, 2012**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

David K. Winterroth appeals pro se from the tax court's summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") in Winterroth's action challenging a federal tax lien to collect penalties assessed against him for filing a frivolous federal income tax return. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court's grant of summary judgment. Miller v. Comm'r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that, in light of Winterroth's 2006 return reporting zero income, zero tax due, and requesting a refund for the amount withheld by his employer despite having earned wages, the penalty issued against Winterroth was appropriate. See 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) (civil penalty of $5,000 for filing a frivolous tax return); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (a form 1040 filed to obtain a tax refund is a tax return).

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the record supports the Commissioner's determination that the collection of the penalty should proceed, and Winterroth failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact. See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (memorandum).

Winterroth's contention that he was denied due process due to bias by both the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court is not supported by the record.

Winterroth's remaining contentions, including that he is not subject to the income tax laws, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

END OF FOOTNOTES

[jcolvin2]

The Tax Court has been affirmed by the 9th Circuit.

I think the affirmance relates to the earlier CDPH case for 2006 mentioned in the Tax Court order, which involved a frivolous return penalty. If the 2007 case (which was decided in March of 2012) received an appellate decision in early July, the CA9 would have set a new land speed record.

[LPC]

I think the affirmance relates to the earlier CDPH case for 2006 mentioned in the Tax Court order, which involved a frivolous return penalty.

You're right.

The case cited in the original post is Tax Court Docket # 3543-11.

The case that was affirmed by the 9th Circuit is TC Docket # 4804-09L.

And there's more to come, because Winterroth filed a new petition with the Tax Court on May 31, # 013833-12.

[LPC]

The Supreme Court has denied cert. in the CDPH case from the 9th Circuit, that I quoted above. Winterroth v. Commissioner, No. 12-423 (U.S.S.C. 11/5/2012).

[LPC]

And there's more to come, because Winterroth filed a new petition with the Tax Court on May 31, [2012], # 013833-12.

And the Tax Court comes through with another $10,000 in sanctions:

Petitioner instituted this proceeding primarily for delay and, despite this Court's warnings, persistently asserted frivolous contentions. We therefore impose a $10,000 section 6673(a)(1) penalty.

David K. Winterroth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-28 (deficiencies, including penalties, upheld for years 2008, 2009, and 2010; sanctions of $10,000 imposed for frivolous contentions).