TAX COURT OPINION

Case: David Matthew Tremont
Docket Number: 4475-16
Judge: Buch
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/17/2017
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DRC DAVID MATTHEW TREMONT, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 4475-16. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit with this order to petitioner and respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in this case before Judge Ronald L. Buch at Detroit, Michigan, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Ronald L. Buch Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 17, 2017 SERVED May 23 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Ronald L. Buch 2 March 29, 2017 3 4 5 6 7 8 David Matthew Tremont v. Commissioner Docket Number 4475-16 . The following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. These oral findings of fact and opinion may not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is in conformity 9 with Internal Revenue Code section 7459(b) and Rule 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 152(a) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Any section references refer to the Internal Revenue Code or the Treasury rclaLluus in effect during the year at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background During 2015, Mr. Tremont received income from various sources, including a salary from 18 Chrysler and a 401(k) distribution from Bank of 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 America. Mr. Tremont does not dispute the income amounts. Mr. Tremont filed a tax return in which he reported the taxable income on the wages line and then reported a loss in excess of that income with the notation "demand lawful money." He attached to his return various documents and schedules making similar references to his demand for lawful money and 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 citing 12 U.S.C. section 411. The Commissioner took exception to this reporting and issued a notice of deficiency in the amount of $46,329. At trial, the Commissioner agreed to a downward adjustment of that deficiency to $45,288. Discussion As a general matter, the Commissioner's determinations in the notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving an error. Rule 142; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, at 115 (1933). Mr. Tremont does not raise any factual disputes, but he raises various quasi-legal arguments that are best characterized as frivolous. His repeated references to 12 U.S.C. section 411 provide an example. The United States has established Treasury Notes as legal tender. Since the mid 1800s, people have attempted to distinguish Treasury Notes from "lawful money." In what have come to be known as the Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), the Supreme Court held that Treasury Notes are lawful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 money. Arguments to the contrary have been 24 characterized as frivolous. See, e.g., Milam v. 25 United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Circuit 1974). 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 Mr. Tremont explained that he found his lawful money argument researching online. As the 3 Court explained to Mr. Tremont following his trial, 4 5 there are many frivolous arguments shared online. And the Court will often not address those arguments 6 with "somber reasoning and copious citation of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 f.2d 1417 (5th Circuit 1984). In Wnuck v. Commissioner, we explained why the Court does not address each frivolous claim "and why litigants who press such arguments are not entitled to and should not expect to receive opinions rebutting their frivolous arguments." Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 499 (2011). Addressing the merits of each claim is unlikely to persuade someone to abandon their frivolous arguments. Issuing yet another opinion that meticulously dispenses with each argument will not bring more clarity to the law or aid other taxpayers seeking to determine their liabilities; it would simply waste valuable resources. We have addressed Mr. Tremont's lawful money argument succinctly in the hope that he will be convinced to abandon frivolous tax arguments. We 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 also take this occasion to call to his attention section 6673. That provision allows this Court to impose sanctions of up to $25,000 if it appears that a party is taking frivolous or groundless positions or that the proceeding is maintained for the purpose of delay. Although the Court is not imposing a sanction as this time, we caution Mr. Tremont that if he continues to pursue arguments that have been repeatedly rejected by the courts, he may face such a sanction. A decision in the amount of $45,288 will be ·. entered for Respondent. THE COURT: Thank you and we'll go off the.·· record. s ' (Whereupon, at 9:06 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com