Opinion
19061-21S.
04-23-2024
ANIKA D. LARKIN, A.K.A. ANIKA D. DUPREY-LARKIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes, Judge.
Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the of the trial of the above case before Judge Mark V. Holmes at Las Vegas, Nevada on March 4, 2024, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the conclusion of trial.
In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate decision will be entered.
Bench Opinion by Judge Honorable Mark V. Holmes
March 4, 2024
Anika D. Larkin, a.k.a. Anika D. Duprey-Larkin v. Commissioner
Docket No. 19061-21S
THE COURT: In the case of Anika D. Larkin, a.k.a. Anika D. Duprey-Larkin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, docket number 19061-21S, the Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following is the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and Rule 152 of the Tax Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.Ms. Larkin was a Nevada resident when she filed the petition in this case challenging a Notice of Deficiency that she had been issued by the IRS. That Notice of Deficiency raised two issues as to her tax year 2018, unreported income of $11,500 from Dreamstone and unreported income of $25,958 from Emgie. That's capital E-M-G-I-E. Ms. Larkin didn't actually deny receiving compensation in this amount in her petition, and at trial, though she didn't remember the specific amounts, she didn't deny getting compensation from these two payors. It's easy enough for me to conclude that it's therefore more likely than not that she did receive compensation from those payors and in the amount that they themselves reported to the IRS.
Ms. Larkin's defense was a more systematic one. She charged the IRS with obstruction of justice, estoppel by default, fraud, and several other legal terms of which it was clear she had a shaky grasp and had pulled off the internet or some other source. For instance, in her petition she claimed, quote:
"Petitioner gave Respondents reasonable notice, time, and grace to locate and produce documentation or documentary evidence or documentary facts regarding the erroneous allegations and any evidence of any waivers of our rights. The deadline for production of said evidence fell around or about May 30, 2020. This deadline has elapsed and to date Respondents have served absolutely nothing upon this affiant which could be considered as a good faith and diligent attempt by you to respond to affiant's lawful and reasonable request within the stated deadline."
In what she called her third notice of default for nonresponse and dishonor, she identified seven failures by the IRS, quote:
"Failure to identify how tax examination was prepared and by whom; failure to provide a copy of the contract signed by both parties and therefore binding both parties with wet ink signatures; failure to provide terms of agreement that include penalties, interest of contract; failure to act in good faith, with clean hands, and without prejudice; failure to provide verification of all accounting details, documentation, forms generate, and all specific details of how this debt was incurred; failure to provide a written declaration under penalty of perjury; and failure to provide verification of contract in which I consent to be trustee or assume fiduciary liability or transferee of a trust with wet ink signature of all parties involved."
She also appointed herself minister plenipotentiary in a separate document that she attached to her submissions to the IRS, in which, quote, she -- in which she said, quote:
"The divine creator is grantor creator of Anika Demali (ph.) Duprey-Larkin and Anika Demali Larkin, maiden name Anika Demali Latham (ph.). The triune of body, mind, spirit as the original
trust corpus did gift, grant, and convey the divine rights of use unto trust for our benefit. As witnessed before all heaven and earth, the creator granted to us at birth the immutable and irrevocable rights over our name, our free will, our flesh, our energy, our labor, our mind, our divine spirit, Anika Demali Larkin, maiden name Anika Demali Latham, a tribune of body, mind, spirit, and authority in dominum from the divine creator, do hereby pronounce, claim, and occupy the office of minister plenipotentiary for the Anika D. Duprey-Larkin and Anika D. Larkin estate, nunc pro tunc.
"As we have accepted the appointment of occupant of the office of minister plenipotentiary, no office, officers, possess any lawful rights or our recognition to continue as agents, administrators, and guardians on our behalf. Therefore, whether they have acted through an office of custodian, protector, steward, keeper, guardian, attorney-in-fact, or any other title, we hereby pronounce their acts null and void, nunc pro tunc.
"As for any assumed filial claims of state over us, let it be known to all that we hereby
disavow the state having any filial rights over us for the first time. We disavow the state having any filial rights over us for the second time. And we disavow the state having any filial rights over us before the divine creator and all heaven and earth for the third and final time."
In a subsequent letter to the IRS, she said, quote: "The Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service obviously created a bond in my name. I am exercising my right of subrogation on this bond. Please use the bond to settle the debt. As subrogee, I am entitled to all of the debtor's -- all the creditor's right, privileges, priorities, remedies, and judgments." There is more, much more, all culminating in a motion dated February 28th of last week for injunctive relief and final judgment in her favor, in which she claims $100,000 in damages for tax years 2020 through 2023 and exemption from all Federal, state, and county taxation tax penalties and the like for Petitioner Anika D. Duprey-Larkin/Anika D. Larkin, Petitioner's current or future businesses, and each lineage member of the estate appointed, established, and authenticated by minister plenipotentiary of the estate for seven generations or for 202 years, whichever is first and congruent, unquote.
This is tax protestor gibberish. Very, very briefly, there is no legal basis to send a letter to the IRS imposing a deadline of your own choosing to get the IRS to do something and then claim the IRS can't do anything to you, much less exempt yourself from taxes for 202 years because the IRS doesn't adhere to the deadline that you tried to impose upon it.
I also have no jurisdiction whatsoever to enjoin the IRS from collection of taxes. There's actually a specific law that says that described in Celauro v. U.S. I.R.S. 411 F.Supp.2d 257, 267 (EDNY 2006). Such injunctive relief is clearly in violation of the Anti-Injunction Act.
My conclusion is that Decision will be entered in favor of the Respondent in this case.
Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.)