Opinion
453-17
06-23-2021
Gregory J. Podlucky & Karla S. Podlucky, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber Judge.
This case is calendared on the Court's October 4, 2021, Los Angeles, California, trial session, to be conducted remotely via Zoomgov. On June 21, 2021, petitioner husband filed, at docket entry #185, a Motion to Compel Stipulation. He also filed, at docket entry #186, a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established Pursuant to Rule 91(f).
In both Motions petitioner husband repeats many of the same arguments that he advanced in his motion for summary judgment, which we denied on June 10, 2021. He asserts that the income tax is unconstitutional, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case, that the notice of deficiency on which this case is based was fraudulent, and that petitioners are entitled to $22 million in damages. As we explained in our June 10, 2021, Order, these contentions are frivolous. We therefore warned petitioner husband that he risked "a significant penalty" under I.R.C. §6673(a)(1) if he continued to make these arguments or any other frivolous arguments.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner husband's Motion to Compel Stipulation, filed June 21, 2021, at docket entry #185, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner husband's Motion for Order to Show Cause, filed June 21, 2021, at docket entry #186, is denied. Petitioners are reminded of their obligation to respond to respondent's Rule 91(f) motion. If they do not respond by July 12, 2021, or if the response is evasive or not fairly directed to the proposed stipulations or a portion thereof, that matter or portion thereof will be deemed stipulated for the purpose of the pending case, and an order will be entered accordingly pursuant to Tax Court Rule 91(f).