Jahn Lacks Education

LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Jahn Lacks Education

Post by LPC »

David Jahn (of http://www.triallogs.com) has again failed to file a return, has again argued that he should be allowed itemized deductions even without filing a return, and has again lost, this time with $10,000 in sanctions, affirmed by the 3rd Circuit.

David Jahn v. Commissioner, No. 10-2526 (3rd Cir. 6/21/2011).
Third Circuit wrote:DAVID JAHN,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

On Appeal from the United States Tax Court
(T.C. No. 08-24302)

Tax Court Judge: Honorable Thomas B. Wells

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 21, 2011

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 21, 2011 )

OPINION

PER CURIAM

David Jahn appeals from a decision of the Tax Court, arguing that the Commissioner should have been required to account for certain itemized deductions in calculating his tax deficiency and challenging the Tax Court's imposition of a penalty pursuant to Internal Revenue Code ("I.R.C.") § 6673. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

I.

This is the second time that Jahn is before us due to his failure to pay taxes. In the first proceeding, which arose out of Jahn's failure to file a tax return for the 2004 tax year, Jahn filed a petition in Tax Court arguing that the Commissioner should have been required to account for itemized deductions in the substitute return he prepared on Jahn's behalf. The Tax Court held that Jahn was not entitled to itemize deductions because he did not file a return relating to 2004. Jahn v. Comm'r, T.C. Mem. 2008-141, 2008 WL 2128229, at *1 (T.C. May 21, 2008). On appeal, we affirmed the Tax Court's holding that a taxpayer must file a return in order to itemize deductions. Jahn v. Comm'r, 392 F. App'x 949, 950 (3d Cir. 2010).

While that appeal was pending, Jahn was served with a notice of deficiency relating to the 2006 tax year. Since Jahn had also failed to file a tax return for the 2006 tax year, the Commissioner calculated Jahn's deficiency by preparing a substitute return for him pursuant to I.R.C. § 6020(b). As with the 2004 tax year, the Commissioner only allowed Jahn the standard deduction.

Jahn filed a petition in Tax Court, challenging the calculated deficiency as he did with the 2004 tax year because the substitute return did not account for itemized deductions. In response, the Commissioner sent Jahn a letter requesting that he submit a return for the 2006 tax year in order to resolve the matter. Jahn took the position that he "shouldn't be required to prepare and sign under penalty of perjury documents which [he] lack[s] the education and training to comprehend, and then potentially suffer fines and penalties or imprisonment due solely to [his] inability to understand and apply the complex tax laws to [his] situation." (Ex. 6-J.) Accordingly, instead of preparing a return, Jahn submitted documentation of the deductions he sought and indicated that the Commissioner should prepare the return for him, taking those deductions into account.

The matter eventually proceeded to trial. Jahn's case rested on the premise that the government should not be able to "compel you to do something you really don't have the education or training to do," i.e., file a tax return. (Trial Tr. 8.) He also reiterated his assertion that he should be entitled to itemize deductions. The Tax Court concluded that Jahn's failure to file a return precluded his eligibility for itemized deductions, and held that the Commissioner had established a deficiency and additions to tax in the amounts reflected in the substitute return. Additionally, the Tax Court imposed a $10,000 penalty on Jahn, pursuant to I.R.C. § 6673, for advancing frivolous arguments despite several warnings that his positions lacked merit.

Jahn timely filed a motion to vacate, which the Tax Court denied. He then filed a timely appeal.

II.

Our appellate jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We exercise plenary review over the Tax Court's legal conclusions, see PNC Bancorp, Inc. v. Comm'r, 212 F.3d 822, 827 (3d Cir. 2000), and review its imposition of a penalty under § 6673 for abuse of discretion. See Pollard v. Comm'r, 816 F.2d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1987) (per 3 curiam).

In this appeal, Jahn continues to maintain that he is entitled to itemize deductions despite his failure to file a return.[1] Jahn argues that I.R.C. § 63(e) allows a taxpayer to itemize regardless of who makes the return. And since the substitute return prepared by the Commissioner constitutes a return for purposes of establishing tax liability and imposing additions to tax, Jahn argues that it constitutes a return for the purpose of electing to itemize under § 63(e). We reject those arguments.

"Unless an individual makes an election under [ § 63(e)] . . . , no itemized deduction shall be allowed for the taxable year." I.R.C. § 63(e)(1). That election "shall be made on the taxpayer's return." § 63(e)(2). Given the I.R.C.'s clear statutory language, it is fairly obvious that, unless a taxpayer files a return and makes the appropriate election, he is not entitled to itemize. See Maxwell v. United States, 80 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1353-54 (N.D. Ga. 1999).

Furthermore, although a substitute return prepared pursuant to I.R.C. § 6020(b) is treated like a return for certain purposes, it is not the equivalent of a return filed by the taxpayer. Section 6020(b) authorizes the Secretary to prepare a substitute return for a taxpayer who has failed to file, which is "good and sufficient for all legal purposes except insofar as any Federal statute expressly provides otherwise." Treas. Reg. § 301.6020-1(b)(3). Among those valid purposes are assessing the taxpayer's deficiency and determining addition to tax. See I.R.C. §§ 6201(a)(1), 6651(g); United States v. Silkman, 220 F.3d 935, 936 (8th Cir. 2000). But the substitute return does not relieve the non-filing taxpayer of his duty to file, see United States v. Lacy, 658 F.2d 396, 397 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam), and does not equate to a filed return unless signed by the taxpayer. See In re Bergstrom, 949 F.2d 341, 343 (10th Cir. 1991).

Thus, a substitute return prepared under § 6020(b) is not a "taxpayer's return" within the meaning of § 63(e)(2). Jahn contends that, if a substitute return qualifies as a return for some purposes, due process and equal protection require that it constitute a return for every purpose. We find no basis for Jahn's constitutional challenge.[2] The Commissioner gave Jahn the standard deduction to which he was entitled. If Jahn wanted to itemize deductions, he should have filed his own return and made the appropriate election as he was invited to do by the Commissioner. Since he did not do so, he is not entitled to itemize deductions for the 2006 tax year.

Jahn also argues that the Tax Court abused its discretion in imposing a penalty under § 6673. "When taxpayers are on notice that they may face sanctions for frivolous litigation, the tax court is within its discretion to award sanctions under section 6673," so long as the sanction does not exceed $25,000. Wolf v. Comm'r, 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993); see I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1). An argument is frivolous "if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law." Coleman v. Comm'r, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986).

First, Jahn's contention that he was never warned that his positions lacked merit is flatly controverted by the record. The Commissioner specifically notified Jahn in a pretrial letter that he intended to seek penalties under § 6673 if Jahn persisted in arguing that he was entitled to itemize deductions without filing a return. Furthermore, the Commissioner clearly stated in his pretrial memorandum and in his opening argument at trial that he sought penalties in light of that argument as well as Jahn's argument that the complexity of the tax code prevented him from filing a return. Indeed, when directly questioned by the Tax Court on the issue, Jahn acknowledged receiving notice that his positions were meritless.

Second, we do not believe that the Tax Court abused its discretion in penalizing Jahn for advancing groundless positions. The Tax Court found Jahn's argument that he should not be compelled to file a tax return given the complexity of the tax code akin to tax protester-type arguments wholly lacking in merit. The Tax Court also noted that Jahn continued to pursue arguments that he had unsuccessfully advanced with respect to the 2004 tax year, i.e., that he should be entitled to itemize. We agree that Jahn's arguments have no support in the law and conclude that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in penalizing Jahn $10,000.[3] See Jenkins v. Comm'r, 483 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2007) (upholding penalty for argument that, while not foreclosed by precedent, was representative of arguments that had been universally rejected, especially since petitioner "previously raised a similar unsuccessful challenge in Tax Court"); Stearman v. Comm'r, 436 F.3d 533, 537-38 (5th Cir. 2006) (upholding $12,500 penalty per case when taxpayer advanced arguments "characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric") (quotations omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.

FOOTNOTES

1 The Commissioner asserts that collateral estoppel bars Jahn's challenge because Jahn unsuccessfully pursued the same argument with respect to the 2004 tax year. Collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense that must be raised initially in tax court. See Shades Ridge Holding Co. v. United States, 888 F.2d 725, 727 (11th Cir. 1989); Sundstrand Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm'r, 96 T.C. 226, 349 (1991). Since the Commissioner never raised the issue of collateral estoppel before the Tax Court, we decline to consider the matter for the first time on appeal. See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 579 F.3d 241, 261 (3d Cir. 2009). We note,however, that we find the Commissioner's position to be somewhat disingenuous since he opposed Jahn's motion to stay the instant case pending our ruling in the earlier appeal on the basis that "the outcome of [the appeal in the prior case] will not have affect [sic] on the instant case" since "[e]ach taxable year stands alone." (Comm'r's Notice of Objection ¶ 4.)

2 Furthermore, we reject Jahn's suggestion that he was unconstitutionally threatened by the Tax Court.

3 Jahn argues that he should not have been penalized because he did not advance any of the arguments posted on the Internal Revenue Service's website, which provides a list of arguments that have repeatedly found by courts to be frivolous. Frivolous Tax Arguments in General, Internal Revenue Service (Jan. 1, 2011), http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html. While that list may provide useful guidance to taxpayers, it is by no means exclusive and does not preclude imposition of a penalty for arguments that are not specifically identified.

END OF FOOTNOTES
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by webhick »

Really? Too stupid to file?
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Pantherphil
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:25 pm

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by Pantherphil »

Mr. Jahn does not appear capable of being educated despite the best efforts of the IRS and the collective good advice and counsel of numerous IRS personnel, government counsel, and multiple federal judges. If he had spent a couple of hours in preparing what appears to be a very simple return, he'd have saved himself a lot of time and money. (Of course, we don't know at this point if he has actually paid any of the taxes from 2004-2006 with interst or the assessed penalties).
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7521
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by The Observer »

webhick wrote:Really? Too stupid to file?
But not too stupid to come up with his own line of frivolous arguments. On second thought, maybe that is proof that he really is too stupid to file.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

Mr. Jahn is capable of being educated, all right. It's just that he chooses to be "educated" by people who say what he wants to hear, and figuratively walks around with fingers in his ears, singling "la-la-la-la-la", whenever someone tries to tell him anything different -- and factual and legally sound. If it doesn't fit in with what he so passionately wishes and believes to be the truth, he's not interested.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by webhick »

Pottapaug1938 wrote:Mr. Jahn is capable of being educated, all right. It's just that he chooses to be "educated" by people who say what he wants to hear, and figuratively walks around with fingers in his ears, singling "la-la-la-la-la", whenever someone tries to tell him anything different -- and factual and legally sound. If it doesn't fit in with what he so passionately wishes and believes to be the truth, he's not interested.
There's a difference between being "educated" and being "edjumacated."
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 pm

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by Joey Smith »

The Service should levy on his URL and put up its list of frivolous arguments in its place.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by Quixote »

webhick wrote:Really? Too stupid to file?
Too stupid to copy. He made a list of his itemized deductions. All he had to do was copy them to the right lines on Schedule A. He may have failed coloring-within-the-lines in kindergarten.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

I wonder if he'll try other sub-ingenious arguments for other tax years. :roll:
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

Quixote wrote:He may have failed coloring-within-the-lines in kindergarten.
I think he's still re-taking that year.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by fortinbras »

He's not the first person to be told that, if he doesn't report his income then he doesn't get to claim deductions therefrom.

Although many tax dodgers have tried arguing that they tried to read but couldn't understand the Internal Revenue Code, the courts have held that the instructions issued by the IRS are sufficient guidance, even without any legal citations to the law or regs. Moreover, the instructions make clear that the taxpayer can hire someone with training to help prepare his tax returns - and do so for free, inasmuch as he can deduct the cost of that assistance.

For somebody who claims to be too ignorant to figure out the Code, Jahn seemed pretty articulate about drafting his court pleadings.
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by jg »

fortinbras wrote:...Moreover, the instructions make clear that the taxpayer can hire someone with training to help prepare his tax returns - and do so for free, inasmuch as he can deduct the cost of that assistance.
....
It is a common error to think that an item that is deductible is thereby essentially free; but that is only true if one can get a tax credit for the full amount (or if you are being taxed at 100% on that item).

A deduction only reduces the net cost to the taxpayer by their marginal tax rate. For example, a deduction for an individual with a 25% tax rate will reduce the cost of that item by 25%.

Thank you for keeping the difference between a deduction and a credit clear for all to see.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by fortinbras »

Thanks for setting me straight.
So the tax assistance is not "free", it's still a lot cheaper and easier than even pro se litigation.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Jahn Lacks Education

Post by LPC »

jg wrote:
fortinbras wrote:...Moreover, the instructions make clear that the taxpayer can hire someone with training to help prepare his tax returns - and do so for free, inasmuch as he can deduct the cost of that assistance.
....
It is a common error to think that an item that is deductible is thereby essentially free; but that is only true if one can get a tax credit for the full amount (or if you are being taxed at 100% on that item).

A deduction only reduces the net cost to the taxpayer by their marginal tax rate.
Another problem is that return preparer fees would be "miscellaneous itemized deductions" and so not really deductible until the total of all of those deductions exceeds 2% of adjusted gross income.

To my mind, the denial of tax deductions for tax preparation fees through the imposition of the 2% floor is one of the most weasily and illogical tax increases ever enacted by Congress.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.