--from Pugh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-138, docket no. 18062-07 (June 15, 2009) (footnote omitted) (bolding added).After concessions, the issues for decision are whether petitioner is liable for the deficiency for 2004, and whether petitioner engaged in behavior warranting the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a).
[ . . . . ]
Petitioner attached to his Form 1040 a Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. In the disclosure statement, petitioner argued that his compensation for services (wages) was exempt from income because: (1) “The claim is founded upon a common law immunity which rendered any money earned from the right of accession immune from taxation”; (2) “The United States Code defined this immunity as a ‘white citizen’ right”; and (3) his wages were not taxable under a claim of right and under section 1341.
Petitioner made similar arguments, notably that his wages were not taxable under section 1341, on his 2003 Form 1040. Petitioner’s 2003 tax year was at issue in [a separate Tax Court case at] docket No. 20893-06. In an order and decision, the Court [in that other case] upheld respondent’s determination not to allow a Schedule A itemized deduction for wages for 2003 and imposed a $10,000 section 6673 penalty as the Court determined that petitioner asserted only frivolous and groundless arguments of claim of right and under section 1341. The Court admonished petitioner that the Court would consider imposing a larger penalty if petitioner returned to the Court and advanced similar arguments.
The result?
(bolding added).Petitioner’s conduct has convinced us that he maintained this proceeding primarily for delay and to advance his frivolous and groundless arguments. Petitioner’s actions have resulted in a waste of limited judicial and administrative resources that could have been devoted to resolving bona fide claims of other taxpayers. See Cook v. Spillman, 806 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1986). Petitioner’s insistence on making frivolous tax-defier arguments indicates an unwillingness to respect the tax laws of the United States. Accordingly, in view of the fact that a $10,000 penalty was not a sufficient deterrent, and petitioner was warned that he faced a stiffer penalty if he made similar frivolous arguments with the Court, we shall require petitioner to pay a penalty of $15,000 to the United States pursuant to section 6673.
Ka-ching! Thank you!
Mr. Pugh gets a $10,000 penalty, doesn't learn his lesson, and now a $15,000 penalty.
Slow learner.
Just another day in paradise.....
