Opinion
7871-23
09-27-2024
ALBERT MARK FONDA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Diana L. Leyden, Special Trial Judge.
Pending in this case is petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed May 22, 2024, as supplemented on May 23, 2024 (motion to compel). On June 25, 2024, respondent filed an Objection to Motion to Compel Production of Documents (objection). With leave of the Court petitioner filed a Reply to Objection to Motion to Compel Production of Documents on July 8, 2024 (reply). By Order served September 11, 2024, petitioner's motion to compel, as supplemented, was assigned to the undersigned for disposition.
This case arises from a Petition contesting a notice of deficiency for tax year 2019 dated April 27, 2023. The IRS prepared a substitute for return for petitioner and determined that petitioner owed a deficiency for tax year 2019 of $62,083, as well as additions to tax under I.R.C. §§ 6651(a)(1), (2), and 6654. In his Petition, petitioner explained that he disagreed with the IRS's actions in this case because:
A. I am not the surety for the ALBERT M FONDA transmitting utility or the ALBERT MARK FONDA IRS TRUST.
B. I am the natural person, Albert Mark Fonda, not a 14th Amendment federal citizen. I am a NATIONAL.
C. I have created a PRIVATE BUSINESS TRUST through which I conduct business and attend to any legal matters.
D. I am the Agent of Record and sole beneficiary for the ALBERT MARK FONDA trust, as a private civilian citizen.
E. I am returning this Notice of Deficiency as OFFER TO CONTRACT REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR.
On the motion to compel before the Court, respondent has objected generally to petitioner's requests because they (1) seek production of documents for 2018 but only 2019 is before the Court, and (2) do not appear to be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Respondent also provided specific objections to petitioner's requests, including (1) that the requests were vague or ambiguous, (2) that some of the specifically requested documents could not be located or did not exist, and (3) that respondent had already provided responsive documents to petitioner.
In this case petitioner has served formal and informal requests for discovery on respondent. Petitioner has previously filed several discovery requests and motions relating to discovery in this case. Most recently, petitioner's discovery motions and other motions were denied by Order served December 20, 2024, after a hearing held by the Court on the motions on December 18, 2023. Subsequently petitioner field two motions for default and dismissal, which the Court summarily denied.
There is a common theme to petitioner's filings. Like the arguments in the Petition they espouse common tax protester rhetoric, and contain frivolous arguments that attempt to relieve petitioner of his underlying tax liabilities. In the motion to compel before the Court, petitioner once again makes the frivolous arguments that he has advanced numerous times in this case, which are neither legally correct nor relevant to the issues before the Court. Under the circumstances there is not any need to catalog petitioner's arguments and painstakingly address them. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) ("We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit"). Further, the Court concludes that petitioner's numerous frivolous filings are filed primarily for delay.
Upon review of the filings, the Court agrees with respondent's objection that petitioner is not entitled to the documents requested. Accordingly, the Court will deny petitioner's motion to compel with prejudice.
The Court takes this opportunity to inform petitioner that it may impose a penalty of up to $25,000. I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1). The Court at this time will not impose a section 6673 penalty. However, petitioner is warned that if he (1) continues to institute or maintain a frivolous or groundless position or continues to maintain this proceeding primarily for delay, or (2) files another petition and begins another case asserting the same tax protester rhetoric, this Court may impose the maximum section 6673 penalty. Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed May 22, 2024, as supplemented on May 23, 2024, is denied with prejudice.