And Sometimes You Do

[The Observer]

WILLIAM G. PRECOURT,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

Release Date: FEBRUARY 16, 2010


UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Filed February 16, 2010

P's petition is one of eight that he has filed in
this Court, in addition to three complaints in the
District Court -- all advancing frivolous arguments.
P has been penalized under I.R.C. sec. 6673 on four
previous occasions, accumulating $ 22,500 in penalties.
P filed a petition in this case, asserting frivolous
arguments. When this case was called for trial on
June 22, 2009, P failed to appear (as he had failed
in four prior cases), and R moved to dismiss for
lack of prosecution and to impose a penalty under
I.R.C. sec. 6673.

Held: R's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution
will be granted.

Held, further: A penalty of $ 25,000 is imposed
against P under I.R.C. sec. 6673 for his maintaining
frivolous positions and for his instituting and maintaining
this suit primarily for delay.

William G. Precourt, pro se.

Louise R. Forbes, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GUSTAFSON, Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined a deficiency of $ 12,554 in petitioner William G. Precourt's 2006 Federal income tax, together with additions to tax of $ 2,824.65 under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file, $ 627.70 under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay tax, and $ 594.11 under section 6654(a) for failure to pay estimated tax. 1 Mr. Precourt petitioned this Court pursuant to section 6213(a) to redetermine the deficiency and additions to tax; but when his case was scheduled for trial, he failed to appear. The case is now before the Court on respondent's "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute and to Impose a Penalty Under I.R.C. section 6673".

Since May 2004 Mr. Precourt has commenced eight separate cases in this Court and three related cases in Federal District Court. 2 His petitions are largely the same except for years and amounts, sometimes addressing penalties that were not determined for that year. He files new petitions while often failing to appear at trials or hearings in his existing cases. In this case he failed to appear at trial despite the Court's explicit order served 10 days before the calendar call.

For the reasons discussed below, respondent's motion will be granted and a penalty in the maximum amount of $ 25,000 will be imposed.

A rather lenghty opinion follows citing the long tortured history of this TP filing suit after suit. Even previous frivpens have failed to slow him down.

[The Operative]

This is just further proof that you can't fix stupid.

[Judge Roy Bean]

At the risk of being somewhat repetitive, IMHO frivolous penalties are basically meaningless for many (if not most) of the people really wrapped up in this nonsense. A $25,000 penalty from the evil tax court is a badge of honor to someone who doesn't own anything and lives in the cash-based economy.

For them, education somehow became an event, not a perpetual process. Once they discovered the "answer" to their problems they block out everything and literally don't care.

Add to that mix the ability to rationalize what amounts to larceny (tax evasion) and you wind up with the Precourt's of the world; to them it's OK to steal from the ebil gubment.

[The Observer]

At the risk of being somewhat repetitive, IMHO frivolous penalties are basically meaningless for many (if not most) of the people really wrapped up in this nonsense.

As I'm sure we could conclude about prison apparently not being effective against repeat offenders. But we need to do something. Personally, I think people who keep filing these frivsuits should be held in contempt of court and spend some jail time thinking about what landed them there. But I have no idea if a tax court judge has the authority to do so.

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, if frivpens won't stop these wackos, maybe a good, long stay in the graybar pens will at least keep them from doing much further damage; and maybe the prospect of future, more extended stays in the graybar pens might make the TP/TDers think twice about acting on their delusions....

[Judge Roy Bean]

... But I have no idea if a tax court judge has the authority to do so.

I know bankruptcy Judges can. But I believe in Tax Courts the only viable mechanism for dumping this trash is motion by the Respondent for summary judgment and the application of sanctions.

[Thule]

As I'm sure we could conclude about prison apparently not being effective against repeat offenders. But we need to do something. Personally, I think people who keep filing these frivsuits should be held in contempt of court and spend some jail time thinking about what landed them there. But I have no idea if a tax court judge has the authority to do so.

Well, they do fill the classic role of the village idiot. They might not care if they're pelted with rotten fruit, but at least some potential TPs will think twice before risking the same treatment. Especially if they actually own something that can be lost.

'course, the really annoying part is yokels wasting public time and money on KoolAide of the Month. Some sort of three-strike, perhaps? 3 friv.pens in 10 years=20 years ban on filing pro se?

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with the consensus here, I don’t think the friv pens are really a deterrent for this crowd, for the very simple reason that most of them don’t have the money to pay their taxes to begin with, let alone any penalties they may rack up in the process, and sending them to jail will only further convince them that they were right and are being persecuted, not to mention the added expense and strain on the prison system.

This group are “true believers” whether truly or by convenience, but they are “true believers”, which means that no matter how often you swat them down they will come back because they believe they are “right” and are being blocked by the “ebil govmint”, or whatever, which means that no matter what you show them, their opinion is right and yours is wrong.

The only reasonable and functional option is to quit letting them file petitions that are frivolous nonsense. One warning, and on the next one, as some one suggested, they become vexatious litigants in all courts, and have to file, and file only non frivolous matters through an attorney. It probably won’t stop them, but should at least slow them down

[Nikki]

And they'll still bitch because their rights in the court system are being suppressed.

The Koolaid addicts are beyond hope. They have arrived at a conclusion and nothing will dissuade their Quixotic pursuits.

However, perhaps the publicity of their inanity might help wean at least one other away from the trough of slops.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
'course, the really annoying part is yokels wasting public time and money on KoolAide of the Month. Some sort of three-strike, perhaps? 3 friv.pens in 10 years=20 years ban on filing pro se?

I'm going to go out on a constitutional limb here and suggest that pro-se litigants should not be allowed to pursue an appeal of their civil tax court cases without counsel - assuming, of course that we establish a remunerated cadre of "public defender" counsel for FIRST TIME appellants or those who pass an in forma pauperis test that discounts their repeated, willful failure to file/conform.

In other words, if you want to keep playing the game, you have to find a bona fide practitioner to mount a legitimate legal challenge or the game is over.

I know. Good luck with that.

[LPC]

Personally, I think people who keep filing these frivsuits should be held in contempt of court and spend some jail time thinking about what landed them there. But I have no idea if a tax court judge has the authority to do so.

There are several Tax Court rules that refer to contempt, the most general of which is Rule 13(d):

(d) Contempt of Court: Contempt of Court may be punished by fine or imprisonment within the scope of Code section 7456(c).

And IRC section 7456(c) states that:

(c) Incidental powers

The Tax Court and each division thereof shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

(1) misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;

(2) misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; or

(3) disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

It shall have such assistance in the carrying out of its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command as is available to a court of the United States. The United States marshal for any district in which the Tax Court is sitting shall, when requested by the chief judge of the Tax Court, attend any session of the Tax Court in such district and may otherwise provide, when requested by the chief judge of the Tax Court, for the security of the Tax Court, including the personal protection of Tax Court judges, court officers, witnesses, and other threatened persons in the interests of justice, where criminal intimidation impedes on the functioning of the judicial process or any other official proceeding. The United States Marshals Service retains final authority regarding security requirements for the Tax Court.

I was watching a family court hearing one day in which one of the parties kept wanting to raise an issue that the judge didn't want to hear about. Finally, the judge pointed out that another person had already been taken from the courtroom in handcuffs for backtalk, and that if he said one more word on the subject, the judge would hold him in contempt and he could join the other guy in the holding cell. (The judge later suggested it was not one of his best days.)

I think that Tax Court judges could do the same, and hold taxpayers in contempt for arguing issues that the judge has told them not to argue, but as far as I can tell it has never happened, and probably never will. (Tax Court is usually not going to inflame the same level of passion as family court. And tax deniers like to maintain a pretense of civility, and would rather comply with what the judge says and then complain about the tyranny later, out of hearing of the judge.)

(Except maybe for Clarkson. He might be crazy enough to be handcuffed for contempt by a Tax Court judge.)