Opinion
19399-23L
11-07-2024
RUBEN T. VARELA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Cary Douglas Pugh Judge
On October 1, 2024, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in this case (1) granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Impose a Penalty Under I.R.C. § 6673, in part, by holding that respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law but declining to impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673 at that time, (2) denying petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) denying petitioner's Motion to Restrain Assessment or Collection or to Order Refund of Amount Collected. On October 2, 2024, the Court entered an Order and Decision reflecting the Memorandum Opinion's holdings which permitted respondent to proceed with his collection action.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On October 31, 2024, petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161. His Motion misconstrues the Supreme Court's holding in Moore v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 1680 (2024), and advances arguments that this Court has rejected repeatedly as frivolous. Contrary to his assertions, Moore does not undermine the authority of Congress to impose an income tax on him (or other taxpayers), nor does it lend credibility any of his other frivolous arguments (such as the supposed inapplicability of the income tax to compensation earned by private sector employees). 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."); Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35 at *49-54, aff'd, 659 Fed.Appx. 440 (9th Cir. 2016). In Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 514 (2011), we warned the taxpayer about making frivolous arguments and imposed a $1,000 penalty under section 6673 but increased that penalty to $5,000 because the taxpayer filed a motion for reconsideration continuing to make frivolous arguments. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to impose on a taxpayer a penalty of up to $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that the taxpayer instituted or maintained the proceeding primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous.
We previously cautioned petitioner that a section 6673 penalty may be imposed should he continue to pursue his misguided positions. He ignored our warning. We therefore will impose a penalty of $1,000 pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) on petitioner. We again warn him that if he does not abandon these misguided positions in future filings before this Court, a greater penalty may be imposed. Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161, filed October 31, 2024, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, petitioner is liable for a penalty to be paid to the United States pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of $1,000.