Opinion
7327-20
06-28-2022
ARLIN GEORGE HATFIELD, III & JENNIFER MARIE WILLIS HATFIELD, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber, Judge
On July 10, 2020, petitioners initiated a case at docket No. 7327-20 regarding their 2013 tax liability. On January 12, 2021, they initiated a case at docket No. 1500-21 regarding their 2014 tax liability. In both cases they asserted that the wages petitioner husband received for his services as a radiologist, totaling almost $750,000 for the two years, were not "income" subject to Federal income tax. We rejected that argument as frivolous and sustained the Commissioner's deficiency determinations. T.C. Memo. 2022-59 (June 13, 2022). We declined to impose penalties under I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1) because petitioners appeared-only temporarily, as it turns out-to have heeded our warning to desist from further frivolous submissions.
On June 24, 2022, petitioners submitted in docket No. 7327-20 a document captioned "Motion for Mistrial," which was filed as a Motion for a New Trial. Because we decided this case (and the companion case) on motions for summary judgment, there was no trial. We will therefore recharacterize petitioners' submission as a Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161.
In their Motion petitioners reiterate their contention that wages received by a U.S. citizen for services performed in the United States are immune from Federal income tax. We warn petitioners, one last time before lowering the boom, that this is a frivolous argument and that we have the authority to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 for maintaining "frivolous or groundless" arguments or for instituting or maintaining proceedings "primarily for delay." I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1). Petitioners should expect a substantial penalty if they repeat these arguments in any future Tax Court filing.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED the petitioners' Motion for a New Trial, filed at docket entry #39, is recharacterized as petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of Findings of Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161 is denied. It is further
ORDERED that in addition to regular service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on petitioners at the Hayesville, North Carolina, address listed at the end of petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of Findings of Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161.