Cotter - TP Penalized for refusing to give God's money in tribute to Satan's Kingdom

[jcolvin2]

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217
SHIRLEY M. COTTER, ) ) Petitioner, )
v. ) Docket No. 7644-15 L.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER AND DECISION

On March 19, 2015, Ms. Cotter filed a petition to review the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS)¹ Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 63302 (notice of determination), which sustained a proposed levy with respect to Ms. Cotter's unpaid frivolous penalty assessed pursuant to section 6702(b) (section 6702(b) penalty) for 2009. Following the Court's remand of this case to respondent's Office of Appeals (Appeals Office), the Appeals Office issued to Ms. Cotter a Supplemental Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (supplemental notice of determination) sustaining the collection action.

On February 27, 2019, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (motion), pursuant to Rule 121, supported by a memorandum of law submitted by Evan K. Like, respondent's counsel in this case, a declaration submitted by Lavonia A. Furlow-Walker, Appeals Office supervisory settlement officer (SO Furlow-Walker), and a declaration submitted by Peter Salinger (SO Salinger), the settlement officer assigned to conduct a supplemental CDP hearing.3 Respondent contends that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law sustaining the determinations in the notice of determination and supplemental notice of determination that Ms. Cotter is liable for the section 6702(b) penalty the IRS assessed for 2009 and that it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed collection action.

By Orders dated February 27, 2019, and March 21, 2019, the Court directed Ms. Cotter to file a response to respondent's motion. On April 18, 2019, Ms. Cotter filed a letter dated April 12, 2019, in response to the motion in which she states, among other religious reasons:

Because the human race born of the flesh (citizens of earth) cannot see or enter the Kingdom of God as Jesus says in John 3:3-7 of The Holy Bible, I have been ministering in Truth and God's love to our taxing agencies since 2004 AD so they only collect taxes (gifts from "The People" for God's glory and the common good) and not collect tribute money to extend The Devil's Kingdom on earth. Citizens of Heaven in the born-again race (the free, brave citizens of America's National Anthem) are born into God's Kingdom through the Holy Spirit. We have been given God's authority, resources, power, and command to share the Lord of Light, Life, Love, Liberty (The God of America's Declaration of Independence) with every human being. God's SERMM (spiritual-emotional-relational-mental-moral)resources are as important as His natural, physical, personal, societal, and monetary resources.

By Order dated May 15, 2019, respondent's motion was assigned for disposition to the undersigned. See sec. 7443A(b)(4), (c). Ms. Cotter resided in Ohio when she timely filed her petition.

Upon review of the record on respondent's motion, the Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Background

On May 24, 2010, Ms. Cotter and her spouse (Cotters) filed a joint income tax return for 2009, reported owing tax of$2,174, and enclosed a payment of $1,826. Respondent thereafter assessed the total tax reported on the Cotters' 2009 tax return and issued a notice and demand for the unpaid part of the Cotters' self assessed tax. The Cotters failed to pay the unpaid tax liability.

A. Collection Due Process Hearing With Respect to the Cotters' 2009 Tax Liability

On February 7, 2011, the IRS issued a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice ofY our Right to a Hearing with respect to the Cotters' unpaid tax liability for 2009. In response, Ms. Cotter timely submitted a Form 12153, Request for Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, (First Form 12153) dated February 11, 2011.4 Ms. Cotter checked the boxes for filed notice of Federal tax liens and proposed levy or actual levy as the bases for her collection due process (CDP) hearing request.6 Ms. Cotter did not check any of the boxes to request a collection alternative in the First Form 12153 and instead wrote, among other things:

As a person of the light (POL) who believes God living in God's holy Trinity I cannot give God's money for foolish, wicked, wasteful evil practices. The U.S. Constitution & Dec of Independence cannot be abridged by people of the world (POW) who reject truth and prefer sin & death to righteousness & life * * * Stewards of God's world & resources have a different world view than citizens who live as owners of resources. A Constitutional Republic protects the minority view as well as the majority view, as listed in the Bill of Rights.

On March 29, 2011, Appeals Office settlement officer Robin Roth (SO Roth), assigned to the CDP hearing request, sent Ms. Cotter a letter, notifying her that SO Roth had received her CDP hearing request and had determined that her stated reason for the CDP hearing was either:

a "specified frivolous position", identified by the IRS in Notice 200814***
a reason that is not a "specified frivolous position," but is a frivolous reason reflecting a desire to delay or impede federal tax administration; or
a moral, religious, political, constitutional, conscientious, or similar objection to the imposition or payment of federal taxes that reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws.

SO Roth also stated that a CDP hearing could not be scheduled where the request was based solely on a specified frivolous position or if the disagreement reflected a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws. SO Roth requested that Ms. Cotter either (1) amend her CDP hearing request in writing to state a legitimate issue and to state that she withdraws the frivolous or desire-to-delay issues or (2) withdraw her entire CDP hearing request in writing. SO Roth also warned Ms. Cotter the IRS might impose a $5,000 penalty under section 6702(b) if she failed "to withdraw * * * [her] frivolous or desire-to-delay issue from * * * [her] request for a CDP hearing or fail[ed] to withdraw the entire request". Lastly, SO Roth notified Ms. Cotter that the Appeals Office would disregard her CDP hearing request if she failed to respond or submitted another frivolous issue in response.

By letter dated April 11, 2011, Ms. Cotter responded to SO Roth's March 29, 2011, letter and continued to recite her religious objections to paying the unpaid tax liability for 2009. She did not amend or withdraw her First Form 12153.

B. Assessment of Section 6702(b) Penalty

On May 5, 2011, SO Roth sent Ms. Cotter a letter to inform her that the Appeals Office was disregarding her CDP hearing request under section 6330(g) because she did not respond with a legitimate reason or withdraw the frivolous submission. A frivolous submission penalty case was opened for Ms. Cotter in June of2011 with the IRS' Frivolous Return Program (FRP). Ms. Cotter's frivolous submission penalty case was assigned to an FRP employee named Cheryl A. Ranson. On July 22, 2011, Ms. Ranson made the initial determination to assess the section 6702(b) penalty and that determination was approved, in writing, by Ms. Ranson's immediate supervisor, Deanna Bone, on July 27, 2011. On August 22, 2011, the IRS sent a CP15, Civil Penalties Notice, to Ms. Cotter notifying her of the assessment of a section 6702(b) penalty of$5,000 for 2009 and demanding payment. Ms. Cotter did not pay the section 6702(b) penalty.

C. CDP Hearing With Respect to Section 6702(b) Penalty

On August4, 2014, the IRS mailed to Ms. Cotter a Notice CP90, Intent to Seize Your Assets and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing, with respect to the unpaid section 6702(b) penalty for 2009. Ms. Cotter filed a Form 12153 on August 8, 2014, (Second Form 12153) challenging the proposed levy.7 She did not propose any collection alternatives and wrote:

TRUE FREE AMERICANS DO NOT SUPPORT EVIL. ALL OUR EFFORTS & RESOURCES ARE FOR GOD'S GLORY & THE PUBLIC GOOD. Citizens born into God's Kingdom--free brave Americans (as per America's Ntl. Anthem) delight in paying taxes to legitimate govts (supporting lawfulness, righteousness, Roman 13) but we do not give God's money as tribute to further Satan's Kingdom of disease, murder, slavery, tyranny, treason, ignorance, injustice, waste, sin (lawlessness).

By letter dated September 10, 2014, SO Furlow-Walkernotified Ms. Cotter that the Appeals Office had received her case for consideration. Her CDP hearing request was assigned to SO Johnson, who had not had any prior involvement with Ms. Cotter's 2009 section 6702(b) penalty. In a letter dated December 12, 2014, SO Johnson notified Ms. Cotterthat a CDP hearing was scheduled forJanuary 22, 2015. In that letter, SO Johnson also notified Ms. Cotter that, pursuant to section 6330(g), the Appeals Office would disregard any CDP hearing request if it determined that her disagreement was:

a "specified frivolous position", identified by the IRS in Notice 2008-14 * * * or a reason that is not a "specified frivolous position," but is a frivolous reason reflecting a desire to delay or impede federal tax administration; or a moral, religious, political, constitutional, conscientious, or similar objection to the imposition or payment of federal taxes that reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws.

SO Johnson also proposed a streamlined installment agreement of$50 per month.

After rescheduling twice, SO Johnson held the CDP hearing on February 5, 2015.8 According to SO Johnson's notes in the case activity record, during the CDP hearing, Ms. Cotter stated that "she cannot support paying taxes for immoral purposes in accordance with Article 4 Section 4" and she continued to state that she "cannot write a check for $348 to support evil." SO Johnson notified Ms. Cotter that the CDP request would not be considered if it was based on a frivolous position as cited in Notice 2008-14 and that ifMs. Cotter did not have any other basis, the CDP hearing would end. SO Johnson further stated that the IRS had assessed the section 6702(b) penalty because in the CDP hearing request Ms. Cotter filed with respect to her 2009 tax liability she had asserted only frivolous positions as the bases of that request.

D. Ms. Cotter's Challenge to the Notice of Determination

On February 17, 2015, the Appeals Office issued the notice of determination, sustaining the proposed levy with respect to the unpaid section 6702(b) penalty for 2009. Ms. Cotter filed a petition on March 19, 2015, challenging the notice of determination and raising various religious claims. On January 12, 2016, respondent filed an answer in this case. In the answer, among other material allegations, respondent made affirmative allegations concerning Ms. Cotter's liability for the section 6702(b) penalty for 2009. Ms. Cotter failed to file a reply responding to each affirmative allegation in respondent's answer. See Rule 37(a). Respondent filed on February 29, 2016, a Motion for Entry of Order That Undenied Allegations Be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to Rule 37(c) (Rule 37(c) motion). On August 11, 2016, the Court granted respondent's Rule 37(c) motion after Ms. Cotter failed to respond to an Order dated March 3, 2016, directing Ms. Cotterto file a reply to respondent's Rule 37(c) motion and warning her that the Court would grant it if she failed to file a reply.

E. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Filed March 6, 2017

On March 6, 2017, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In an Order dated July 11, 2017, the Court denied respondent's motion for summary judgment without prejudice because neither respondent's motion for summary judgment nor the supporting materials made any reference to whether the requirements of section 6751(b) were met before the section 6702(b) penalty was assessed.9

F. The Court's Remand ofThis Case to Respondent's Appeals Office

On March 19, 2018, respondent filed a Motion To Remand. By Order dated May 14, 2018, the Court remanded this case to respondent's Office of Appeals for further consideration addressing whether written managerial approval under section 6751(b) was obtained before the section 6702(b) penalty was assessed.

Pursuant to the above May 14, 2018, Order, this case was transferred to respondent's Appeals Office in Tampa, Florida, and assigned to SO Salinger who conducted a supplemental CDP hearing with Ms. Cotter. SO Salinger confirmed that on July 22, 2011, an IRS employee proposed assessing a frivolous return penalty under section 6702(b) against Ms. Cotter for submitting the First Form 12153. On July 27, 2011, the employee's supervisor approved such proposal. A copy of the Form 8278, Assessment and Abatement of Miscellaneous Civil Penalties, for the 2009 year in issue that was executed by the employee and her supervisor is attached to SO Salinger's declaration. SO Salinger held a telephone conference with Ms. Cotter on July 25, 2018, and attempted to discuss collection alternatives with her but she declined.

On September 17, 2018, respondent's Appeals Office in Tampa issued to Ms. Cotter a supplemental notice of determination. That supplemental notice of determination sustained the proposed levy action to collect the section 6702(b) penalty for 2009.

This matter is now before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 27, 2019.

Discussion

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Rule 121(a). The Court may grant summary judgment only "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits or declarations, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(a) and (b); see Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).

Respondent, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 554, 559 (2000); Bondv. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529. In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the factual materials and inferences drawn from them must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 559; Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 36; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529. The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts which show that a question o fa genuine material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations or denials in the pleadings. Rule 121(d); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); King v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1213, 1217 (1986); Shepherd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-555, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 645, at *7.

Where the record viewed as a whole could not lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no "genuine issue for trial". Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

B. Hearings Under Section 6330

Section 6331(a) authorizes the Secretary to levy upon property and property rights of a taxpayer liable for taxes who fails to pay those taxes within 10 days after a notice and demand for payment is made. Section 6331(d) provides that the levy authorized in section 6331(a) may be made with respect to unpaid tax only if the Secretary has given written notice to the taxpayer 30 days before the levy. Section 6330(a) requires the Secretary to send a written notice to the taxpayer of the amount of the unpaid tax and of the taxpayer's right to a section 6330 hearing at least 30 days before the levy is begun.
If a section 6330 hearing is requested, a hearing is to be conducted by the Appeals Office "by an officer or employee who has had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax". Sec. 6330(b)(1), (3). The Appeals Office officer charged with conducting the administrative hearing under section 6330 must verify that the requirements of any applicable law and administrative procedure have been met in processing the taxpayer's case. Sec. 6330(c)(1). The Appeals Office must also consider any issues raised by the taxpayer, including offers of collection alternatives, appropriate spousal defenses, and challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). The taxpayer may also challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not receive a notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). The taxpayer may also challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability relating to a section 6702(b) penalty. See Thornberry v. Commissioner, 135 T.C 356, 366-367 (2011). Finally, the Appeals Office must consider whether the collection action balances the need for efficient collection against the taxpayer's concern that collection be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c)(3)(C).
This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the Commissioner's administrative determinations. Sec. 6330(d)(1); see Iannone v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 287, 290 (2004). Where the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews the determination regarding the underlying tax liability de novo. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000). The Court reviews all other determinations for abuse of discretion. Id. at 182.

Respondent concedes that Ms. Cotter's underlying tax liability for the section 6702(b) penalty is properly at issue in this case because she has not had a prior opportunity to dispute it and raised it at the CDP hearing and in her petition. Therefore, Ms. Cotter had the opportunity at the first CDP hearing and the supplemental CDP hearing, with respect to the Second Form 12153, to show why the penalty should not have been imposed. The Court reviews the Appeals Office's determination regarding the section 6702(b) penalty de novo. See id.

C. Section 6702(b) Penalty

The particular penalty at issue in this case is imposed by section 6702(b), which provides that any person who submits a "specified frivolous submission" shall pay a penalty of$5,000. Sec. 6702(b)(1). The term "specified frivolous submission" means a "specified submission" any portion of which is based on a position the IRS has identified as frivolous under section 6702(c) or reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws. Sec. 6702(b)(2)(A). A "specified submission" includes a CDP hearing request under section 6330. Sec. 6702(b)(2)(B)(i)(II). Respondent bears the burden of proving that Ms. Cotter is liable for the section 6702(b) penalty. See sec. 6703(a).

Ms. Cotter submitted the First Form 12153 and the only reason Ms. Cotter stated for disputing the section 6702(b) penalty was her religious belief that she did not owe taxes. Unfortunately for Ms. Cotter, the IRS has identified and listed among frivolous positions the position that the First Amendment permits a taxpayer to refuse to pay taxes based on religious or moral beliefs. Sec. 6702(b)(2)(A)(i), (c); see Notice 2010-17, part III (h)(9)(a), 2010-17 I.R.B. 609; see also, Muste v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 913, 919 (1961) (noting that a taxpayer's moral or religious beliefs do not provide a taxpayer with the right to comply with the law even though the policies of the Government and manner of expenditure of its revenues may not accord with the dictates of that taxpayer's conscience or religion). Ms. Cotter was given a second chance to explain to the Appeals Office why her position was not frivolous but again the only argument she made was based on her religious beliefs.

D. Managerial Approval for the Section 6702(b) Penalty

In the supplemental notice of determination, respondent verified compliance with the section 6751(b)(1) requirement of written managerial approval before the section 6702(b) penalty was assessed. SO Salinger attached to his declaration a copy of the Form 8278 for the 2009 year in issue that was executed by the employee imposing the section 6702(b) penalty and approved by her supervisor.

E. Verification

The record establishes that SO Johnson and SO Salinger, utilizing IRS transcripts and other materials available to them, verified that requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were satisfied. The SOs also balanced the need for the efficient collection of amounts owed with legitimate concerns that collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Further, because petitioner never raised any issue regarding collection alternatives, the SOs had no reason to consider that matter. In short, there was no abuse of discretion by the SOs.

F. Conclusion

The Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material facts. The record establishes that (1) the only argument advanced by Ms. Cotter in the First Form 12153 was frivolous and met the requirements for imposing the frivolous submission penalty under section 6702(b) and (2) respondent obtained the appropriate managerial approval required under section 6751(b)(1), see Clay & Osceola v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. __ (April 24, 2019). The Court will grant respondent's motion.

G. Warning About Another Penalty

Finally, the Court takes this opportunity to inform Ms. Cotter about section 6673(a)(1). That section authorizes the Court to impose on a taxpayer a penalty not to exceed $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 Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see, e.g., Notice 2010-17, part III(h)(9)(a), 2010-17 I.R.B. 609. Although respondent does not seek, and the Court has decided not to impose sua sponte, such a penalty in this case, Ms. Cotter is warned that the Court may not be so forgiving if she returns to the Court in the future and continues to advance frivolous and groundless arguments. See Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000).

Premises considered, it is hereby

ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 27, 2019, is granted. It is further

ORDERED AND DECIDED that the determinations in the notice of determination and supplemental notice of determination (upon which this case is based) are sustained, and respondent may proceed with collection action in respect of Ms. Cotter's outstanding liability for the section 6702(b) penalty for 2009.

(Signed) Diana L. Leyden Special Trial Judge
ENTERED: MAY 22 2019

I The Court uses the term "IRS" to refer to administrative actions taken outside of these proceedings. The Court uses the term "respondent" to refer to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is the head of the IRS and is respondent in this case, and to refer to actions taken in connection with this case.

2 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, in effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

3 SO Furlow-Walker supervised Appeals Office settlement officer Diane Johnson (SO Johnson), who was assigned to conduct Ms. Cotter's original CDP hearing in this case. SO Furlow-Walker signed the March 19, 2015, notice of determination.

4 Although Mr. Cotter's name is listed on the First Form 12153, he did not sign the form.

5 The record does not show that a notice of Federal tax lien was filed with respect to the unpaid tax liability of 2009 at the time Ms. Cotter filed the First Form 12153.

6 On the First Form 12153 Ms. Cotter checked the box to request an equivalent CDP hearing, but the record does not show that Ms. Cotter failed to timely request a CDP hearing.

7 In the Second Form 12153 Ms. Cotter checked the box to request an equivalent hearing, but the record does not show that she failed to timely request a CDP hearing.

8 The case activity record attached to SO Furlow-Walker's declaration shows that on January 21, 2015, SO Johnson rescheduled the CDP hearing for January 29, 2015. By letter dated January 27, 2015, SO Johnson rescheduled the CDP hearing for February4, 2015. However, the case activity record indicates that the CDP hearing was held on February 5, 2015.

9 The IRS cannot assess a penalty under section 6702(b) unless "the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor ofthe individual making such determination". Sec. 6751(b).

[Famspear]

To recap, the score is now:
Satan 1, Cotter 0.

I hate it when this happens . . . . . .

[Famspear]

Uh-oh.

A crackpot protester called Cotter
Flung out foolishly frivolous fodder.
Yes, the girlie called Shirley
Was overly surly;
Her tax theory was a non-starter.

[Famspear]

Comin' around again ! . . . .

Yes, it seems Shirley’s falsely conflatin’
Payin’ taxes with homage to Satan.
Her religious belief
Is now bringin’ her grief;
Payin’ taxes is something she’s hatin’.

[Famspear]

H-h-help, I c-c-can't stopppppppp . . . . .

So, she sadly must see, and concede
That, to Satan, her tribute she’ll feed.
Yes, the poor Missy Cotter
Becomes Satan’s Daughter,
And satisfies Satan’s tax need.

[jcolvin2]

To recap, the score is now:
Satan 1, Cotter 0.

I hate it when this happens . . . . . .

Cotter only owed $342 when this all started. In other words, Satan won on penalty kicks.

[notorial dissent]

Ah, the good old tried and true looney toon religious defense, works every time, except when it doesn't, like all the time.

You know, I figured this was for some paltry amount, and look where it landed them.

Maybe instead of the penalty they should have just unleashed Famspear's doggerel on them, except you know, that would probably constitute cruel and inhuman punishment.

[ArthurWankspittle]

To recap, the score is now:
Satan 1, Cotter 0.

I hate it when this happens . . . . . .

Cotter only owed $342 when this all started. In other words, Satan won on penalty kicks an own goal.

[The Observer]

H-h-help, I c-c-can't stopppppppp . . . . .

The score is now Satan 3, the Quatloosian Anti-Limerick Team zero.

[Judge Roy Bean]

THREE?!?!? One wasn't enough?

What should the penalty be for piling on?

[ArthurWankspittle]

THREE?!?!? One wasn't enough?

What should the penalty be for piling on?

He's a serial offender, m'lud.

[Cpt Banjo]

What should the penalty be for piling on?

Old Famspear the bard has a knack
For posting verse three at a whack.
For this crime, doubtlessly,
A just penalty
Is an hour or two on the rack.

[Famspear]

What should the penalty be for piling on?

Ah cahn't 'elp it. It's mah nay-chuh . . . . .

. . . . . . apologies to writer-director Neal Jordan, The Crying Game (1992) . . . . .