But it is less Orwellian to put him in jail for the same thing? Remember, Hendrickson is currently serving prison time for signing and filing tax returns which he claims to believe are true, correct, and complete.jcolvin2 wrote:It seems like a violation of fundamental rights (First Amendment) and somewhat Orwellian to use contempt to force a person to affirm something that he doesn't agree with simply in order to make tax returns administratively processable by an agency.
If the IRS issues a notice of deficiency, Hendrickson would have 90 days to file a petition with the Tax Court.jcolvin2 wrote:The IRS of course can proceed civilly against the Hendricksons by issuing notices of deficiency. In the event of a court challenge, collateral estoppel (the same arguments were made in the erroneous refund suit) will work in the government's favor.
The Commissioner could then move for summary judgment alleging collateral estoppel (among other things).
After some number of days, or weeks, or months, the Tax Court could rule in favor of the IRS, perhaps even getting sanctions for a frivolous petition.
Hendrickson would then have an appeal period.
If Hendrickson files an appeal, the IRS would then have to wait for the Court of Appeals to deny the appeal before assessing the tax.
If Hendrickson petitions for cert., the IRS would then have to wait for the Supreme Court to deny cert. before assessing the tax.
OR:
If the district court is able to enforce the order it has already issued, and Hendrickson files a correct return, the tax can be assessed immediately.
Which procedure is more efficient? The government wants to enforce the order it already has (and for which appeals have already been denied), and require Hendrickson to file a correct return. You can disagree with the government and say that a different approach would have worked out better (or will work out better), but it's not clear that it would have saved (or will save) anyone any time or effort to issue a notice of deficiency rather than asking for an order to Hendrickson to file correct returns.
As far as the judge's order is concerned, you seem to think it is unreasonable for the government to get the benefit of the litigation it has already won, and reasonable to allow Hendrickson to initiate another round of time-wasting and fruitless litigation. I don't think that the judge has the right to second-guess the IRS and order the IRS to pursue a remedy that is different from the one it has chosen merely because the judge thinks that it *might* be better for the IRS.