Farr v. CIR, 18-9002

Joan E. Farr, proceeding pro se, was a disqualified person associated with Association for Honest Attorneys (AHA), a § 501(c)(3) organization.
From 2010–2012 Farr used AHA’s checking account for personal expenditures (grocery, retail, automotive, home-improvement), tuition payments, and exhumation expenses, totaling $39,495.34.
The IRS assessed § 4958 excise taxes: a first-tier tax (25%) and, for failure to timely correct, a second-tier tax (200%). Assessed amounts were $9,873.83 (first-tier) and $78,990.68 (second-tier).
Farr challenged the assessments in Tax Court, claiming the withdrawals were for AHA purposes, compensation for services, or repayment of loans she made to AHA; the Tax Court sustained the assessments.
Farr appealed pro se, largely advancing unsupported accusations (fraud, conspiracy) and arguing she was denied counsel and could invoke the Fifth Amendment; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding she failed to present credible evidence that benefits were consideration and that her other arguments were legally insufficient or waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Farr’s withdrawals from AHA constituted excess benefit transactions under § 4958	Farr: withdrawals advanced AHA’s mission, were compensation for services, or repaid loans	Commissioner: withdrawals were personal benefits exceeding any consideration to AHA	Affirmed: Tax Court correctly found excess benefit transactions; Farr did not prove any consideration justified the benefits
Right to appointed counsel in Tax Court	Farr: Tax Court should have appointed counsel	Commissioner: No right to appointed counsel in Tax Court	Held: No right to counsel in Tax Court; refusal to appoint counsel not error
Use of Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid taxpayer’s burden of proof	Farr: she should be allowed to plead the Fifth to avoid proving innocence	Commissioner: Privilege cannot relieve taxpayer of proving Commissioner’s deficiency	Held: Privilege cannot be used to satisfy taxpayer’s burden to disprove deficiency
Sufficiency of appellate allegations of fraud/conspiracy	Farr: Tax Court and Commissioner engaged in fraud/conspiracy	Commissioner: Allegations unsupported; pro se must present succinct, cited arguments	Held: Bare, scurrilous accusations forfeited appellate review; insufficient to overturn decision

Lewis v. Comm’r, 523 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2008) (standards of review: legal questions de novo, factual findings for clear error)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigant must present succinct, cited arguments; court will not construct arguments)
Shamrock v. Comm’r, 860 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2017) (no right to counsel in Tax Court proceedings)
Kosinski v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 671 (6th Cir. 2008) (Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be used to satisfy taxpayer’s burden to disprove a tax deficiency)
Anaya v. Comm’r, 983 F.2d 186 (10th Cir. 1993) (taxpayer bears burden of proving Commissioner's assessment incorrect)
Tele–Commc’ns., Inc. v. Comm’r, 104 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 1997) (issues not raised before trial court are forfeited on appeal)
Mitchell v. Comm’r, 775 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2015) (arguments forfeited before Tax Court and not argued on appeal are waived)