CA5 Imposes Sanctions on TPs 2x what IRS Requested

[jcolvin2]

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf

[Pottapaug1938]

What's especially pathetic about these idiots is that they escaped any sanctions at trial!

[Pottapaug1938]

Look at page 3: "Pro se litigants are entitled to some additional latitude in pleading [citation]. But no amount of latitude could allow a court to glean any justiciable issue from the rambling rhetoric and disjointed statements in the Taylors' pleading.

YEEEEOUCH!

[bmielke]

The insults include: (1) describing this court as a place where “RICO-level extortion 7
is published policy, witnesses are tampered with and retaliated against, consent is compelled
as a matter of course, and the judicial structure is altered by force”; (2) calling the Tax Court
judges “criminally insane” and judges of this court “mental pygmies”; (3) and describing the
Commissioner’s motion to dismiss as “clinically insane, lawless, or both. WE ARE LAUGHING
AT YOU! ALL OF YOU!”

Footnote last page.

I read this and all I could thin was the pot calling the kettle black.

[LPC]

I looked up the Tax Court order, and it reads as follows:

Background

On October 24, 2008, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted And To Impose A Penalty. Under I .R .C .'Section 6673. The core of
respondent's motion may be found in paragraphs 3 and 5 thereof:

3 . Petitioners do not deny in any of the 2,755 paragraphs of their petition that they received compensation for their services, but instead contest the classification of these payments as income .

5 . Petitioners' claim that they have no income tax liabilities based upon a lack of a fiduciary relationship is without merit and is not a claim upon which relief can be granted .

On December 1, 2008, petitioners filed "Taylors' Response To Comm'r's Motion To Dismiss." In objecting to the granting of respondent's motion, petitioners contend (inter alia) that "'Taxpayer' Means 'Fiduciary.' "

Also on December 1, 2008, petitioners filed : (1) "Taylors' Motion To Strike TCR [Tax Court Rule] 160" ; (2) ','Taylors' Motion To Strike TCRs 120 and 121" ; (3) Taylors' . Motion To Strike TCRs 70(a)(2) and 90(a)" ; (4) "Taylors" Motion To Strike TCR 91" ; (5) "Taylors' Motion For Default Judgment" ; (6) "Taylors' TCR 121 Motion To Strike Comm'r's Motion To Dismiss"; (7) "Taylors' TCR
23(a)(3) Motion To Strike Comm'r's Motions And All Other Documents"; (8) "Taylors' Notice Regarding Non-Amendment" ; and (9) "Taylors' Notice Regarding Parties'And Capacities".

By Order dated January 5, 2009, petitioners were directed to file an amended petition on or before January 30, 2009, and action on petitioners' above-referenced motions was held in
abeyance.

On January 26, 200.9, petitioners filed "Taylors' Response To Colvin's 5 January 2009 Order To Amend" . The gist of petitioners' Response appears in the last paragraph thereof:

COLVIN'S "order" to amend not only makes him a party, which simultaneously negates his signature authority as a "judge," and not only perpetuates an illegal policy on its face, but also constitutes numerous crimes against us . See our Probable Cause Affidavits accompanying our Verified Motion to Strike TCR 51.

Also on January 26, 2009, petitioners filed (1) "Taylors' Motion To Strike Colvin's 5 January 2009 Order To Amend" ; and (2) "Taylors' Verified Motion To Strike TCR 51" . Attached to the latter document were (1) "Probable Cause Affidavit Of H . Lyndon Taylor" and (2) "Probable Cause Affidavit Of Barbara L . Taylor" .

Petitioners did not file an amended petition as directed by the Court in its January 5, 2009 Order.

Analysis

Giving due regard to the statements contained in respondent's aforementioned motion, which statements are incorporated into this order as the findings of fact and analysis of the Court made in support of the ruling embodied in this order, and further giving petitioners not only the benefit of every doubt as we are required to do at this stage of the proceeding, see Hicks v . Small , 69 F .3d 967, 969 (9th Cir . 1995), but wide pleading latitude as pro se litigants, see-Estelle v . Gamble , 429 U .S . 97, 106 (1976), we find that petitioners' petition in the instant case fails to raise any justiciable issue. See Parker v . Commissioner , 117 F .3d 785 (5th Cir . 1997) ;
White v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 1997-459 ; see also Crain v . Commissioner , 737 F .2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir . 1984) . Accordingly, we shall grant that part of respondent's motion requesting dismissal of this case.

Respondent also moves that the Court impose a penalty on petitioners under I .R .C . section 6673(a)(1) . That section authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position
in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless . A petition to the Tax Court is frivolous "if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the
law ." See Coleman v . Commissioner , 791 F .2d 68, 71 (7th Cir . 1986) .

Petitioners' . arguments are frivolous and groundless. Although the Court will not impose a penalty on petitioners in this case, petitioners are advised that if they return to this
Court in the future and make similar arguments to those advanced in the instant case , petitioners may well be the recipient of a substantial penalty under I .R .C . section 6673(a) . See Coleman v . Commissioner , supra ; Crain v . Commissioner , supra at 1417-1418 .

Premises considered, it is

ORDERED that so much of respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted And To Impose A Penalty Under I .R .C . Section 6673, filed October 24, 2008, that moves for dismissal is granted, and this case is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . It is further

ORDERED that so much of respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted And To Impose A Penalty Under I .R .C . Section 6673, filed October 24, 2008, that moves for the imposition of a penalty is denied . It is further

ORDERED that petitioners' motions filed December 1, 2008, and .January 26, 2009, are denied. It is further

ORDERED AND DECIDED that there are deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows: [Table omitted]

(Signed) John O. Colvin
Chief Judge

[bmielke]

How many pages was there Petition? 2700+ paragraphs has to be close to 1000 pages. who has time to write that crap?

[Quixote]

How many pages was there Petition? 2700+ paragraphs has to be close to 1000 pages. who has time to write that crap?

No one, on his own. I suspect that 99% of the petition was cut and pasted. All the petitioner had to do was print it out. I doubt he read much of it. I'm waiting for Becraft or one of the other lawyers specializing in the defense of TPs to argue, on appeal of a sanction the TP received while appearing pro se, that his client can not be sanctioned for raising a frivolous argument because the client is functionally illiterate and could not have known what was in the petition.

[notorial dissent]

Hadn’t come across this before, although it is basically just another variation of the “magic words” defense of take a word most of the rest of the universe understands with little or no problem and give it an entirely new and unfounded meaning to suit your purposes.

Strange, that it doesn’t seem to work any better with these “magic words” than with any of the other ones that have been tried, like "includes" that seems to come immediately to mind. Maybe there is a pattern here and we are just not seeing it, do you suppose????