Nitschke - Back for More 6673 Action!

[jcolvin2]

We last saw Martin Nitschke a few years ago:
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... t=Nitschke

He has returned to the Tax Court, only to receive an additional $10,000 section 6673 penalty (which was not even requested by IRS Counsel):
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/Opin ... x?ID=10777

Judge Pugh's explanation:

Although respondent has not moved for imposition of a penalty, petitioner
was warned by order in Nitschke v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 13265-14L
(June 11, 2015) that we might impose a penalty in this case if he persisted in
making his frivolous arguments. And he is no stranger to the consequences of
making frivolous arguments and using court proceedings for the purpose of delay.
We have imposed a penalty on petitioner for his actions on more than one
occasion. See, e.g., Nitschke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-143. He shouldnot be surprised, therefore, that we will once again impose a penalty on him, thistime in the amount of $10,000. We also remind petitioner that he risks a penalty each time he pursues these arguments. While a penalty here may dissuade him no more than ones we have imposed in the past, imposing the penalty on him again for his persistence in trying to deny or delay his obligation to pay tax by making frivolous arguments serves as a warning to other taxpayers considering these or similar arguments. See, e.g., Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-10.

[LaVidaRoja]

I wonder whether there is any chance the government will ever collect one dime of either the taxes or the penalties assessed against him?

[.]

Thank you sir! May I have another!

Other "warned" petitioners will enjoy the game. Yeah! Let's go for the 25K max! That'll really show 'em our frivolous crap is right!

Likelihood of ever collecting a dime from any of these dolts? Zero. The exception being the poor slob who got so excited about bringing down The Man that he forgot that he owns some real estate with unencumbered value. Oops.

Court numbers on imposed versus collected sanctions would be interesting. Probably pitiful. Might move Congress to change the law. Say, to 5K on the 1st shot (like an IRS frivpen, which are imposed administratively and routinely by non-judge bureaucrats) and then immediately and automatically to 25K-100K-250K-500K and up for successive iterations of frivolous junk.

Much scarier numbers might have a more salutary effect on miscreants or potential imitators than something that tops out at 25K after 5-6-7 or more infractions. I think the idea isn't so much to collect sanctions as to cut down on the time judges waste on totally frivolous garbage.

[The Observer]

The only immediate and serious impact these penalties will most likely have is when the notices of liens are recorded for them against our frivvers. If they have ability to earn money or want to borrow, then the existence of the notice is going to be a barrier to that. Of course, if they are judgment proof and are living hand to mouth, they are not likely to be impacted by the lien's existence. But in that case, it is certainly a waste of their time and money to be pursuing litigation that gets nowhere.

[notorial dissent]

Stupidity is its own reward????? you'd think common sense and self preservation, but then if those were operating to begin with they wouldn't be where they are. So. Never. Mind.

[.]

Or, how about $5 per word of the opinion dispensing with the frivolity plus $5 per word of the frivolous pleading/answer/motion/etc., including all attachments. Plus an extra $5K bonus penalty if the court quotes Crain v. Commissioner since that usually saves thousands of words.

$10 per word on the second go-around. $20 per on the third, etc. Might make a serious dent in TP verbosity.

[The Observer]

I think moving them to the "vexatious litigant" category is the most efficient way of keeping their gibberish out of court.

[notorial dissent]

I would think that it would be self evident that they were, but what do I know.

[KickahaOta]

Another Nitschke sighting.

In 2018, Nitschke petitioned the Tax Court, claiming that the IRS had not issued deficiency notices to him for 2003-2017. The IRS responded with a motion to dismiss, pointing out two subtle flaws in Nitschke's litigation strategy:

• A notice of deficiency is what gives the Tax Court jurisdiction to hear this sort of case. Therefore, filing a petition with the Tax Court on the grounds that there is no notice of deficiency would seem to have roughly the same effect as filing a petition saying "I'm filing a petition on the grounds that this petition is groundless."
• A rather cursory glance at the court's dockets would reveal that Nitschke had, in fact, litigated several of those nonexistent notices of deficiency, which he had helpfully attached to his petitions in those cases, which Nitschke had ultimately lost because of unorthodox legal strategies like the one employed in the current case.

In response, Mr. Nitschke sharpened his argument to a painfully-constructed point, as summarized by the Fifth Circuit:

Nitschke responded to the motion to dismiss by alleging that the Commissioner had committed fraud on the Tax Court. Specifically, he argued that there are no copies of the notices issued to him for the years 2003 to 2017 in the IRS’s Master File, which the Internal Revenue Manual describes as “the official control records for all taxpayer accounts.” Because the IRS’s Master File “does not document the legal existence” of valid notices, Nitschke claimed that the notices he previously received, and in some cases contested, are “fictitious.”

The Tax Court was treasonously unimpressed, and dismissed the case with a $2500 frivpen for good measure.

Nitschke appealed to the Fifth Circuit, because of course he did, and the Fifth Circuit just responded with an affirmance, though with no additional frivpen.

[Dark Optimist]

Only $2,500?

WIN!!!!!!!