Frivolous attack on frivolous return penalty

[Quixote]

A post by ENDtheFED on Losthorizons raises a question. If, in connection with a CDP hearing concerning a frivoous return penalty (6702(a)), a TP makes the frivolous argument that IRC §6702 is invalid for lack of implementing regulations, would he be liable for a penalty under 6702(b) for submitting a specified frivolous submission?

And couldn't Congress have saved some space in the IRC by imposing the penalty on a frivolous specified submission, thereby eliminating the need to define "specified frivolous submission"?

[Famspear]

A post by ENDtheFED on Losthorizons raises a question. If, in connection with a CDP hearing concerning a frivoous return penalty (6702(a)), a TP makes the frivolous argument that IRC §6702 is invalid for lack of implementing regulations, would he be liable for a penalty under 6702(b) for submitting a specified frivolous submission?

And couldn't Congress have saved some space in the IRC by imposing the penalty on a frivolous specified submission, thereby eliminating the need to define "specified frivolous submission"?

On the first question, it would seem that under a literal, narrow reading of the statute, you would have to know the context in which the argument was made. If the argument was made in a REQUEST for a hearing, then the penalty would appear to apply IF the submission reflects a "desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws" (even if the argument is not one of those specifically listed by the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate as frivolous for purposes of section 6702). And, of course, the same would apply if the Secretary, etc., HAS listed that very argument as being frivolous.

However, if you read the statute literally and narrowly, then section 6702(b) would NOT apply if the taxpayer instead simply raised the argument DURING THE HEARING ITSELF. If interpreted narrowly in this way, the statute would bring a rather odd result -- the possibility of imposition of a frivolous penalty for raising the frivolous argument in the REQUEST (even if the taxpayer does not mention the argument during the hearing itself), but NO penalty for raising the frivolous argument ONLY during the actual hearing.

I don't know whether a court would interpret the statute that literally or not.

On the second question, I'm not sure I can answer it. Congress might have wanted to define the term "specified submission" separately from the term "specified frivolous submission" (as Congress did) in order to limit the application of subsection (b) to those circumstances clearly and specifically identified by the Congress. After all, a five thousand dollar penalty is a stiff penalty. I'm not sure that the statute couldn't have been drafted some other way to achieve that, though, and I'm not sure my answer is responsive to your question.

[Famspear]

Note: For the record, the IRS has indeed listed the following argument as being frivolous for purposes of section 6702:

The Internal Revenue Code is not law (or "positive law") or its provisions are ineffective or inoperative, including the sections imposing an income tax or requiring the filing of tax returns, because the provisions have not been implemented by regulations even though the provisions in question either (a) do not expressly require the Secretary to issue implementing regulations to become effective or (b) expressly require implementing regulations which have been issued.

(bolding added).

See item (2), Notice 2008-14 (Jan. 14, 2008), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Dep't of the Treasury.

[Quixote]

A post by peace on LostHorizonshas almost answered my question. The IRS appears to have proposed a 6702 penalty based on a document that is contesting a 6702 penalty.

Please specifically state which parts of my Form 843 are frivolous, so that I may correct it. If I do not receive correspondence specifically stating which parts of my Form 843 are frivolous, then the IRS is in agreement that in fact, my form is not frivolous and is wholly correct.

But the 843 was used for penalties, as there were several friv pen bs FOR ONE YEAR, and also, for a year where my account standing agrees with my filing, at $0. So the penalty is in contradiction with their agreement of my filing.

Peace's response is yet another frivolous response, though not a specified submission, and empty threats.

[.]

Eventually, one of these idiots is going to find a way to rack up 3rd and 4th and 5th derivative $5K frivolous penalties all based on one return and the further nonsense filings it spawns.

Whoever manages that mind-boggling feat of stupidity deserves some sort of award.

[Melted Rabbit]

Eventually, one of these idiots is going to find a way to rack up 3rd and 4th and 5th derivative $5K frivolous penalties all based on one return and the further nonsense filings it spawns.

Whoever manages that mind-boggling feat of stupidity deserves some sort of award.

Interestingly enough the third derivative of position is known as "jerk", the fourth derivative "jounce" or "snap", the fifth "crackle", and the sixth "pop". However, there are no officially accepted and recognized names for the fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position, so those names are actually unofficial. The names for the first and second derivatives of position are velocity and acceleration, just to show what they derivatives of position are used for normally. The names "jerk", "jounce" or "snap", "crackle", and "pop" may very well be what these idiots may be in for in the future.

More information on "jerk". Includes additional entertaining abuses for derivatives of momentum (force).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html