" ▁certain ▁well - est ab lished ▁jud icial ▁preced ents — was ▁rejected ). ▁ ▁Lind sey ▁K . ▁Springer , ▁a ▁pro ponent ▁of ▁the ▁P aper work ▁Red u ction ▁Act / OM B ▁control ▁number ▁argument , ▁raised ▁the ▁issue ▁in ▁his ▁own ▁federal ▁criminal ▁tax ▁case . ▁His ▁argument ▁was ▁rejected ▁by ▁the ▁court , ▁and ▁the ▁j ury ▁found ▁him ▁guilty ▁of ▁one ▁count ▁of ▁consp i racy ▁to ▁def ra ud ▁the ▁I RS , ▁three ▁counts ▁of ▁tax ▁ev asion , ▁and ▁two ▁counts ▁of ▁will ful ▁failure ▁to ▁file ▁federal ▁income ▁tax ▁returns . ▁ ▁The ▁O MB ▁control ▁number ▁argument ▁and ▁variations ▁of ▁this ▁argument ▁have ▁been ▁officially ▁identified ▁as ▁leg ally ▁f riv ol ous ▁Federal ▁tax ▁return ▁positions ▁for ▁purposes ▁of ▁the ▁$ 5 , 0 0 0 ▁f riv ol ous ▁tax ▁return ▁penalty ▁im posed ▁under ▁In ternal ▁Re venue ▁Code ▁section ▁ 6 7 0 2 ( a ). ▁In ▁C arg ill ▁v . ▁Commission er , ▁an ▁$ 8 , 0 0 0 ▁penalty ▁was ▁im posed ▁on ▁tax p ayer ▁Jud y ▁C arg ill ▁under ▁ ▁in ▁connection ▁with ▁her ▁appeal ▁in ▁which ▁she ▁pers isted ▁in ▁making ▁the ▁O MB ▁control ▁number ▁argument ▁after ▁having ▁been ▁not ified ▁that ▁the ▁argument ▁was ▁f riv ol ous . ▁ ▁Arg uments ▁about ▁the ▁status ▁of ▁the ▁I RS ▁ ▁Some ▁tax ▁protest ers ▁argue ▁that ▁the ▁I RS ▁is ▁not ▁a ▁government ▁ag ency