Sean M Murray - Dead "Artificial Person" Walking

[jcolvin2]

Murray v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2017-67
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/Opin ... x?ID=11192

Some highlights:

Commencing with his petition, petitioner engaged in a series of actions evidently
designed to throw sand into the gears of this Court’s case-docketing procedure
and delay the trial of his case. Although alive and well, he captioned his
petition: “Murray, Sean Michael as Executor of Sean Michael Murray Estate.”
And although residing in New York, he requested a place of trial in San Francisco.

Misled into believing that petitioner was the executor of a decedent’s estate,
we ordered the caption amended to include the phrase, “Estate of Sean Michael
Murray, a.k.a. Sean M. Murray, Deceased.” On October 22, 2015, petitioner filed
a motion to vacate that order, asserting that “as executor” he was “the real party in interest” and that his original caption was correct. He concurrently filed a change of address form showing a new address in Oakland, California.

We directed respondent to express his view as to petitioner’s motion and the Commencing with his petition, petitioner engaged in a series of actions evidently
designed to throw sand into the gears of this Court’s case-docketing procedure
and delay the trial of his case. Although alive and well, he captioned his
petition: “Murray, Sean Michael as Executor of Sean Michael Murray Estate.”
And although residing in New York, he requested a place of trial in San Francisco.
Misled into believing that petitioner was the executor of a decedent’s estate,
we ordered the caption amended to include the phrase, “Estate of Sean Michael
Murray, a.k.a. Sean M. Murray, Deceased.” On October 22, 2015, petitioner filed
a motion to vacate that order, asserting that “as executor” he was “the real party in interest” and that his original caption was correct. He concurrently filed a change of address form showing a new address in Oakland, California.

We directed respondent to express his view as to petitioner’s motion and the
proper captioning of this case. In a response filed November 13, 2015, respondent’s counsel informed the Court that he had called the New York telephone number reported on the petition and spoken with petitioner, “who stated something to the effect that he filed the case on behalf of ‘Sean M. Murray,’ the artificial person.” Respondent noted that the notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner as an individual; that he was alive; and that the case should be recaptioned to show “Sean M. Murray” as petitioner.

We ordered the case recaptioned as respondent urged and directed petitioner
to file, within three weeks, a ratification of his petition with the signature of the
correct taxpayer. On December 16, 2015, petitioner filed a 40-page response replete with tax-protester gibberish. He asserted that respondent had violated various Federal criminal statutes and had “fail[ed] to cite a reason or explanation” for his request that the case be recaptioned. He denied “the claim that Sean M. Murray is alive and well * * * for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.” And he attached a “durable power of attorney” and an IRS Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, purporting to authorize him to represent the “Sean Michael Murray Estate.” On February 23, 2016, he filed another frivolous document that he signed “as executor.”

We calendared this case for trial in San Francisco, California, as petitioner
had requested. On August 30, 2016, more than two months after his case was calendared, he filed a motion, again signed by him “as executor,” to change
the place of trial to Albany, New York. He asserted in that motion that he “is not a
resident of either San Francisco, California, or Albany, New York” but “is domiciled in San Jose, Costa Rica.” We denied that motion, explaining that Albany
was reserved as a place of trial for small tax cases only. See Rule 174; Tax Court
Form 5 (App. I, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure).

On September 12, 2016, petitioner filed a cut-and-pasted version of his prior
motion, this time requesting that the place of trial be changed to New York, New
York. He again asserted that he was not a resident of New York but was “domiciled in San Jose, Costa Rica.” As a justification for changing the place of trial he asserted vaguely that “circumstances have changed considerably” since he originally requested trial in San Francisco. Because petitioner appeared to reside in New York, respondent did not object to this motion; and on November 10, 2016, we recalendared the case for trial in New York City on April 3, 2017.

On November 30, 2016, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment.
Counsel for respondent represented that he had telephoned petitioner to ascertain
his correct address for service of this motion. Petitioner replied that he was in an
“‘address confidentiality program’ run by the Secretary of State.”

In his response to the summary judgment motion petitioner “generally denies
receipt of the income identified in the notice of deficiency” but adduces no
facts to support this allegation. He asserts that respondent’s motion is “incorrect
in its assertion of a requirement to file a return and seemingly represents a willful
attempt to circumvent due process requirements with baseless claims of frivolous
arguments.” He asserts, without adducing any supporting facts, that “no valid debt was cancelled and that no pension distributions were taxable for 2012, leaving no income to report.” He refuses to respond to respondent’s contention that he does not occupy the status of an “executor,” asserting that respondent “fails to provide a definitive statement or specific reference with which to respond.”

* * *

Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess
of $25,000 whenever it appears that the taxpayer has instituted or maintained the
proceeding “primarily for delay” or has taken a position that is “frivolous or
groundless.” Sec. 6673(a)(1)(A) and (B). The purpose of section 6673 is to compel
taxpayers to conform their conduct to settled tax principles and to deter the waste of judicial resources. See Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71
(7th Cir. 1986); Bruhwhiler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-18, 111 T.C.M.
(CCH) 1071, 1074.

Petitioner has repeatedly advanced numerous frivolous positions in this Court. These include assertions that he has no obligation to file Federal income tax returns, that he is the executor of the estate of an artificial person, and that
respondent’s counsel has violated criminal provisions of the United States Code.
He has also engaged in tactics patently designed to delay the final determination of his Federal income tax liability, including filing documents with misleading captions, making multiple unjustified requests to change the place of trial, and submitting documents containing obvious falsehoods and laced with tax-protester
gibberish. He has repeatedly wasted the resources of respondent’s counsel and
this Court. We will accordingly require that he pay to the United States under
section 6673(a) a penalty of $1,500. This opinion will serve as a warning to petitioner that he risks a much larger penalty if he engages in similar tactics in any future appearance before this Court.

[LaVidaRoja]

Behavior this bad and he only gets a $1,500 penalty because (presumably) he's a first time offender. I wonder how soon he'll be pulling the same s**t again?

[Pottapaug1938]

Behavior this bad and he only gets a $1,500 penalty because (presumably) he's a first time offender. I wonder how soon he'll be pulling the same s**t again?

I also wonder how soon he'll fork over the $1,500. I'm guessing that it will happen sometime around the time when he is compelled to pay his back taxes, plus any other fines and penalties he racks up in the meantime.