Opinion
453-17
06-10-2021
Gregory J. Podlucky & Karla S. Podlucky, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber Judge
In 2009 petitioner husband was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and attempting to evade or defeat tax for 2003-2006, in violation of I.R.C. § 7201. In 2011 petitioner husband pleaded guilty to these charges. He was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment.
On November 21, 2016, respondent issued petitioners a notice of deficiency for 2003-2006. This notice determined deficiencies of $476,123, $1,189,550, $1,091,254, and $2,024,775, respectively, plus civil fraud penalties totaling $3,586,277. Petitioners timely petitioned this Court in January 2017. The case was first set for trial in January 2018 but has been continued several times due to petitioner husband's incarceration.
In the petition petitioner husband disputed "the application of the deficiency authorities and the income tax laws as a direct tax without apportionment." He asserted that IRS' determinations are "prohibited by Article I of the U.S. Constitution" and that this Court "lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce direct taxation under the 16th Amendment." These are frivolous positions. See IRS Notice 2010-33.
Rather than address the matters that are actually at issue in this case, petitioner husband has repeatedly advanced frivolous contentions. On January 24, 2018, he filed a motion to vacate the notice of deficiency arguing that the IRS did not have constitutional authority to issue the notice and that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. That motion was denied on February 21, 2018. On April 13, 2018, petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment advancing similar contentions and stating that this Court is liable for $22 billion in damages for operating as a "Star Chamber Court." That motion was denied on May 17, 2018. On March 4, 2019, petitioner husband filed another motion for summary judgment contending that there is "no enabling enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment * * * to [grant this Court] subject-matter jurisdiction." And on March 26, 2019, he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction advancing similar contentions. Both motions were promptly denied. Largely because of these gratuitous filings, the docket in this case already has more than 180 entries.
Petitioner husband has nevertheless filed another motion for summary judgment repeating many of the same arguments that we have already rejected. He argues that the 16th Amendment lacks an "enabling enforcement clause," that the IRS is prohibited from "enforce[ing] a direct tax without apportionment," and that this Court lacks "personal jurisdiction" and "subject-matter jurisdiction" over the case. Much of the gibberish in his motion appears to have been downloaded from tax protestor websites.
I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty of up to $25,000 if it appears to the Court that the taxpayer has instituted or maintained proceedings "primarily for delay" or has taken a position that "is frivolous or groundless." Petitioner husband's submissions to this Court to date have included numerous frivolous statements and positions. We warn petitioner husband that he risks a significant penalty if he continues on this path. See, e.g., Briggs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-86 (imposing penalty of $3,000); Balice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-46 (imposing penalty of $25,000).
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDER ED that petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 8, 2021, at docket entry #181, is denied.