in tax debate, need help.

[pinkmandy]

If you don't pay you are practicing civil disobedience and *could* go to jail. Whether the income tax is legit, whether it is constitutional doesn't matter when they will still send you to jail. Yes, we need to clarify the law (or the lack thereof, lol) and do something about this. If you plan on not paying your taxes, hire a damn good tax attny first and plan your strategy. I wouldn't walk into it blindly. Good luck!!! If I'm on your jury you will be NOT GUILTY.

 

[ionlyknowy]

If you don't pay you are practicing civil disobedience and *could* go to jail. Whether the income tax is legit, whether it is constitutional doesn't matter when they will still send you to jail. Yes, we need to clarify the law (or the lack thereof, lol) and do something about this. If you plan on not paying your taxes, hire a damn good tax attny first and plan your strategy. I wouldn't walk into it blindly. Good luck!!! If I'm on your jury you will be NOT GUILTY.

did you not read my last post... the post right before yours.... you cant get to a jury now. The tax protest args have been deemed frivolous and the govt. will move for a summary judgment BEFORE you even see a jury. Then you will be fined and then you will lose.

Go back and read my post to see a cite and the actual IRS code that says this. Yeah, dont get a good tax attorney because it wont help... I am a law student so I deal with this on a regular basis... I have researched this very topic and this is what I came to. I dont like it but that is just how it is.... sorry







Taxpayer who challenges final notice of intent to levy without stating any specific allegations and who later raises only taxpayer protest arguments may be subject to penalties for engaging in actions primarily for delay or for raising frivolous and groundless arguments. Pierson v Commissioner (2000) 115 TC 576.

Even though taxpayer's deficiency was reduced substantially during trial, court may impose full penalty on its own motion if deficiency reduction was achieved in spite of, not because of, taxpayer's actions, such as where taxpayer refused to cooperate with IRS during audit and filed tax-protester type petition with court, he showed his books and records to IRS only when court ordered him to produce them, he refused to stipulate to figures conceded by IRS and refused to offer records or anything else into evidence during trial, and he also raised frivolous constitutional claims at trial, attempted to oust court of jurisdiction, and submitted protester materials as brief after trial. Stafford v Commissioner (1983) TC Memo 1983-650, RIA TC Memo P 83650, 47 CCH TCM 172.

Tax court assessed $ 2,500 in damages under 26 USCS § 6673 against taxpayer where his proceedings were instituted and maintained for delay, his position was frivolous and groundless, and proceedings were continuation of tax-protester pattern, despite court's warning all such taxpayers at calendar call of likelihood of such damage award. Watt v Commissioner (1986) TC Memo 1986-22, RIA TC Memo P 86022, 51 CCH TCM 293.

Penalty of $ 1,200 was imposed on taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where (1) on several occasions before parties submitted case, court: (a) informed taxpayer that petition contained statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments that court found to be frivolous and groundless, (b) reminded taxpayer about 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1), and (c) admonished taxpayer that, in event that taxpayer were to continue to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments, court would have imposed penalty under § 6673(a)(1); (2) nonetheless, in brief that taxpayer filed, taxpayer persisted in making frivolous and groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments; and (3) taxpayer's position was frivolous and groundless and taxpayer instituted and maintained proceeding primarily for delay. Milby v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-15, 89 CCH TCM 698.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 10,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-60, 89 CCH TCM 942.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 12,500 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-61, 89 CCH TCM 945.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with collection where taxpayers advanced tax protestor arguments and IRS Office of Appeals properly verified that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed; taxpayers were assessed $ 15,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments. Meyer v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-82, 89 CCH TCM 1049.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with proposed levy where taxpayer advanced universally rejected tax protestor arguments; taxpayer was assessed $ 2,000 penalty for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments and for instituting and maintaining proceedings primarily for delay. Poe v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-107, 89 CCH TCM 1248.

Taxpayer was warned that if he continued to pose frivolous and irrelevant issues for discussion at hearings pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330 or requested such hearings for purposes of delay, he would be penalized in accordance with 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Delgado v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-186, 90 CCH TCM 108.

Penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 was appropriate where taxpayer was warned his tax protestor rhetoric made him potentially liable for penalty and, as professional tax return preparer, taxpayer knew or should have known that his arguments were frivolous. Wetzel v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-211, 90 CCH TCM 266.

Penalty of $ 1000 was assessed against taxpayer after suit he brought in U.S. Tax Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because arguments raised by taxpayer fell into category of typical tax protestor arguments, taxpayer had been warned by IRS that arguments he was raising had been found to be frivolous, and it was evident that taxpayer petitioned court primarily to delay levy proceedings against him. Parker v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-231, 90 CCH TCM 349.

U.S. Tax Court imposed penalty of $ 10,000 against taxpayer for asserting universally-rejected "tax protestor" arguments that were frivolous and groundless and because record compelled conclusion that proceeding was instituted and maintained primarily for delay. Bonaccorso v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-278, 90 CCH TCM 554.

Tax court imposed $ 25,000 penalty upon taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where taxpayer continued to assert arguments that court warned were frivolous, such as deficiency assessed against him was not based on statutory law and therefore amounted to violation of his due process rights; further, taxpayer had been penalized for asserting frivolous arguments in previous petitions and appeared to be using these arguments as delay tactic. Stallard v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-42, 91 CCH TCM 881.

Tax Court did not impose penalty under I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1) despite fact that substantial portion of taxpayer's contentions were classic, shopworn tax protester arguments; taxpayer also sought review of notice of determination and supplemental notice of determination for which Commissioner of Internal Revenue himself eventually conceded remand was appropriate. Sapp v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-104, 91 CCH TCM 1177.

In collection review proceeding pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330, no genuine issue of material fact existed requiring trial where taxpayer raised only frivolous tax protester type arguments; $ 10,000 penalty against taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 was warranted where, despite being warned, taxpayer persisted in his arguments. Clampitt v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-161, 92 CCH TCM 99.

When U.S. Tax Court concluded that taxpayer's position was patently frivolous and it was convinced that he invoked 26 USCS § 6330 protections in bad faith, it imposed substantial penalty under 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Schwersensky v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-178, 92 CCH TCM 177.

Sanctions under 26 USCS § 6673 were warranted where taxpayer had made concentrated effort to avoid payment of his federal tax obligation; he did not file return his withholding was limited, he advanced only well-worn tax protestor arguments, and at trial, taxpayer attempted to thwart litigation process by attempting to withdraw from his agreed stipulation at last minute. Cooper v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-241, 92 CCH TCM 415.

Taxpayer's petition was dismissed penalty of $ 5,000 was imposed pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 where taxpayer failed to include in his petition clear and concise statements of facts on which he based his assignments of error; petition contained only type of frivolous tax protestor arguments that had been repeatedly rejected. Harris v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-275, 92 CCH TCM 533.

 

[randolphus maximus]

So what the law is saying is that the government can deny you your property (your wages) without due process. Which, to me, sounds un-Constitutional

did you not read my last post... the post right before yours.... you cant get to a jury now. The tax protest args have been deemed frivolous and the govt. will move for a summary judgment BEFORE you even see a jury. Then you will be fined and then you will lose.

Go back and read my post to see a cite and the actual IRS code that says this. Yeah, dont get a good tax attorney because it wont help... I am a law student so I deal with this on a regular basis... I have researched this very topic and this is what I came to. I dont like it but that is just how it is.... sorry







Taxpayer who challenges final notice of intent to levy without stating any specific allegations and who later raises only taxpayer protest arguments may be subject to penalties for engaging in actions primarily for delay or for raising frivolous and groundless arguments. Pierson v Commissioner (2000) 115 TC 576.

Even though taxpayer's deficiency was reduced substantially during trial, court may impose full penalty on its own motion if deficiency reduction was achieved in spite of, not because of, taxpayer's actions, such as where taxpayer refused to cooperate with IRS during audit and filed tax-protester type petition with court, he showed his books and records to IRS only when court ordered him to produce them, he refused to stipulate to figures conceded by IRS and refused to offer records or anything else into evidence during trial, and he also raised frivolous constitutional claims at trial, attempted to oust court of jurisdiction, and submitted protester materials as brief after trial. Stafford v Commissioner (1983) TC Memo 1983-650, RIA TC Memo P 83650, 47 CCH TCM 172.

Tax court assessed $ 2,500 in damages under 26 USCS § 6673 against taxpayer where his proceedings were instituted and maintained for delay, his position was frivolous and groundless, and proceedings were continuation of tax-protester pattern, despite court's warning all such taxpayers at calendar call of likelihood of such damage award. Watt v Commissioner (1986) TC Memo 1986-22, RIA TC Memo P 86022, 51 CCH TCM 293.

Penalty of $ 1,200 was imposed on taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where (1) on several occasions before parties submitted case, court: (a) informed taxpayer that petition contained statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments that court found to be frivolous and groundless, (b) reminded taxpayer about 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1), and (c) admonished taxpayer that, in event that taxpayer were to continue to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments, court would have imposed penalty under § 6673(a)(1); (2) nonetheless, in brief that taxpayer filed, taxpayer persisted in making frivolous and groundless statements, assertions, contentions, and arguments; and (3) taxpayer's position was frivolous and groundless and taxpayer instituted and maintained proceeding primarily for delay. Milby v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-15, 89 CCH TCM 698.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 10,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-60, 89 CCH TCM 942.

Taxpayer's numerous frivolous motions advancing shopworn arguments that were characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric warranted $ 12,500 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673. Florance v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-61, 89 CCH TCM 945.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with collection where taxpayers advanced tax protestor arguments and IRS Office of Appeals properly verified that all applicable laws and administrative procedures were followed; taxpayers were assessed $ 15,000 penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments. Meyer v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-82, 89 CCH TCM 1049.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue was allowed to proceed with proposed levy where taxpayer advanced universally rejected tax protestor arguments; taxpayer was assessed $ 2,000 penalty for advancing frivolous and groundless arguments and for instituting and maintaining proceedings primarily for delay. Poe v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-107, 89 CCH TCM 1248.

Taxpayer was warned that if he continued to pose frivolous and irrelevant issues for discussion at hearings pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330 or requested such hearings for purposes of delay, he would be penalized in accordance with 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Delgado v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-186, 90 CCH TCM 108.

Penalty under 26 USCS § 6673 was appropriate where taxpayer was warned his tax protestor rhetoric made him potentially liable for penalty and, as professional tax return preparer, taxpayer knew or should have known that his arguments were frivolous. Wetzel v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-211, 90 CCH TCM 266.

Penalty of $ 1000 was assessed against taxpayer after suit he brought in U.S. Tax Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because arguments raised by taxpayer fell into category of typical tax protestor arguments, taxpayer had been warned by IRS that arguments he was raising had been found to be frivolous, and it was evident that taxpayer petitioned court primarily to delay levy proceedings against him. Parker v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-231, 90 CCH TCM 349.

U.S. Tax Court imposed penalty of $ 10,000 against taxpayer for asserting universally-rejected "tax protestor" arguments that were frivolous and groundless and because record compelled conclusion that proceeding was instituted and maintained primarily for delay. Bonaccorso v Comm'r (2005) TC Memo 2005-278, 90 CCH TCM 554.

Tax court imposed $ 25,000 penalty upon taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1) where taxpayer continued to assert arguments that court warned were frivolous, such as deficiency assessed against him was not based on statutory law and therefore amounted to violation of his due process rights; further, taxpayer had been penalized for asserting frivolous arguments in previous petitions and appeared to be using these arguments as delay tactic. Stallard v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-42, 91 CCH TCM 881.

Tax Court did not impose penalty under I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1) despite fact that substantial portion of taxpayer's contentions were classic, shopworn tax protester arguments; taxpayer also sought review of notice of determination and supplemental notice of determination for which Commissioner of Internal Revenue himself eventually conceded remand was appropriate. Sapp v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-104, 91 CCH TCM 1177.

In collection review proceeding pursuant to 26 USCS § 6330, no genuine issue of material fact existed requiring trial where taxpayer raised only frivolous tax protester type arguments; $ 10,000 penalty against taxpayer pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 was warranted where, despite being warned, taxpayer persisted in his arguments. Clampitt v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-161, 92 CCH TCM 99.

When U.S. Tax Court concluded that taxpayer's position was patently frivolous and it was convinced that he invoked 26 USCS § 6330 protections in bad faith, it imposed substantial penalty under 26 USCS § 6673(a)(1). Schwersensky v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-178, 92 CCH TCM 177.

Sanctions under 26 USCS § 6673 were warranted where taxpayer had made concentrated effort to avoid payment of his federal tax obligation; he did not file return his withholding was limited, he advanced only well-worn tax protestor arguments, and at trial, taxpayer attempted to thwart litigation process by attempting to withdraw from his agreed stipulation at last minute. Cooper v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-241, 92 CCH TCM 415.

Taxpayer's petition was dismissed penalty of $ 5,000 was imposed pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673 where taxpayer failed to include in his petition clear and concise statements of facts on which he based his assignments of error; petition contained only type of frivolous tax protestor arguments that had been repeatedly rejected. Harris v Comm'r (2006) TC Memo 2006-275, 92 CCH TCM 533.

 

[pinkmandy]

Well how can they deny a trial by jury? You are entitled to be tried by a jury of your peers, no? And when did this change take place with tax protestors?

 

[ionlyknowy]

So what the law is saying is that the government can deny you your property (your wages) without due process. Which, to me, sounds un-Constitutional

It may be so, but the courts are NOT the venue to use to get change... That is what a frivolous lawsuit is... it has already been decided.

There are other ways to change the law. The court avenue has been exhausted and unless you want to be fined with no chance, then pursue these elsewhere.. just trying to help.. people get misled by the tax protest movement and they end up like one of the above cases....

You wonder why all of the cites to the cases above dont have the correct citing.

Here is a quick lesson. A court case cite looks like the following...

Roberts v. C.I.R., 329 F.3d 1224, 1229 (11th Cir. 2003)
Jenkins v. Comm'r, 483 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007)

The __ F.3d ___ part is the reporter where you can find the case
the numbers that surround the F.3d are the volume and section.
The 11th Cir. part is the federal circuit of appeals court. The eleventh circuit.

Notice that all of the above tax cases that are listed in the post above have none of these... this is because they never went to trial... there was summary judgment meaning the judge makes the decision as a matter of law before the trial even starts.

And in the tax protest instance, after the judge decides in favor of the IRS's motion for summary judgment, then they fine you money.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Damages may be awarded against taxpayer under 26 USCS § 6673 where taxpayer asserts frivolous constitutional objections, such as claim that Sixteenth Amendment to Constitution is invalid since not properly ratified. Pollard v Commissioner, IRS (1987, CA11) 816 F2d 603, 87-1 USTC P 9314, 59 AFTR 2d 1074.

Double costs are assessed against taxpayer who makes appeal on basis that he is exempt from tax because he is war tax resister and that IRS was interfering with his exercise of religious beliefs by disallowing claimed exemptions. Schehl v Commissioner (1988, CA6) 855 F2d 364, 88-2 USTC P 9493, 62 AFTR 2d 5567.

After prior warning to taxpayers and their counsels that litigating frivolous issues and presenting no credible evidence could result in fine for instituting proceedings for delay, imposition of maximum fine is proper where petitioner refused to address merits of case and proceeded on constitutional grounds that he knew were without substance. Wilkinson v Commissioner (1979) 71 TC 633.

Tax Court properly imposes delay penalty on taxpayer who asserts constitutional and statutory arguments which have been rejected by other courts prior to his suit, and who concedes single substantive issue in case by stipulation and offers no evidence to show that various additions to tax are inapplicable. Froeber v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-139, RIA TC Memo P 84139, 47 CCH TCM 1329.

Taxpayers were properly assessed with damages pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673, where they took "World Peace Fund Tax Credit," depositing amount of credit claimed in escrow account, and where court rejected their arguments based on free exercise clause and on Supreme Court cases involving self-employment tax and unemployment compensation. Hollingshead v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-158, RIA TC Memo P 84158, 47 CCH TCM 1390.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Tax Court properly imposed penalty against taxpayer who filed suit but refused to substantiate deductions challenged by IRS on ground that doing so would violate his privilege against self-incrimination. Lukovsky v Commissioner (1984, CA8) 734 F2d 1320, 84-1 USTC P 9525, 54 AFTR 2d 5143.

Taxpayer who purported to be well versed on law and was aware that he could not make blanket Fifth Amendment claim on his return is subject to full penalty where he files exemption certificate claiming he owes no taxes on ground that he could assert blanket Fifth Amendment claim on his return. Froeber v Commissioner (1982) TC Memo 1982-81, RIA TC Memo P 82081, 43 CCH TCM 576.

Government was properly awarded $ 4,000 in damages, pursuant to 26 USCS § 6673, where taxpayer filed return with no income data and persisted in asserting Fifth Amendment argument before Tax Court even though he had been informed by court in prior case that argument was groundless. Wright v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-183, RIA TC Memo P 84183, 47 CCH TCM 1493, affd (1985, CA5) 752 F2d 1059, 85-1 USTC P 9191, 55 AFTR 2d 890.

Tax protester's persistence in asserting Fifth Amendment claim even after notification that such claims are meritless in cases where possibility of criminal prosecution is unlikely or remote is grounds for penalty for instituting frivolous action. Walters v Commissioner (1988) TC Memo 1988-530, RIA TC Memo P 88530, 56 CCH TCM 664.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Penalty is properly assessed against taxpayer who did not report his compensation as income, refused to provide information about his exemptions, deductions, or credits, and continued to press frivolous and meritless claims about lack of constitutionality of Internal Revenue Code. Dragoun v Commissioner (1984) TC Memo 1984-94, RIA TC Memo P 84094, 47 CCH TCM 1176.

Penalty is upheld where taxpayer, despite conviction of willful failure to file returns, argues against imposition of fraud penalties by claiming that Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional and that by revoking his social security number he had made himself immune to tax laws. Jentzsch v Commissioner (1987) TC Memo 1987-513, RIA TC Memo P 87513, 54 CCH TCM 850.

 

[randolphus maximus]

Well, then you would agree that the way that the IRS is "enforcing" the law is unconstitutional?

It may be so, but the courts are NOT the venue to use to get change... That is what a frivolous lawsuit is... it has already been decided.

There are other ways to change the law. The court avenue has been exhausted and unless you want to be fined with no chance, then pursue these elsewhere.. just trying to help.. people get misled by the tax protest movement and they end up like one of the above cases....

You wonder why all of the cites to the cases above dont have the correct citing.

Here is a quick lesson. A court case cite looks like the following...

Roberts v. C.I.R., 329 F.3d 1224, 1229 (11th Cir. 2003)
Jenkins v. Comm'r, 483 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007)

The __ F.3d ___ part is the reporter where you can find the case
the numbers that surround the F.3d are the volume and section.
The 11th Cir. part is the federal circuit of appeals court. The eleventh circuit.

Notice that all of the above tax cases that are listed in the post above have none of these... this is because they never went to trial... there was summary judgment meaning the judge makes the decision as a matter of law before the trial even starts.

And in the tax protest instance, after the judge decides in favor of the IRS's motion for summary judgment, then they fine you money.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Well how can they deny a trial by jury? You are entitled to be tried by a jury of your peers, no? And when did this change take place with tax protestors?

Here is your answer

The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). A motion for summary judgment may be granted where there is no dispute as to a material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(a) and (b). 4 HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Craig v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 252, 260 (2002); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts which show that a question of genuine material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations [*8] or denials in the pleadings. See Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986).

 

[randolphus maximus]

Well whether it's unconstitutional or not, one thing that is for sure is that the way the IRS COLLECTS the tax is unconstitutional. That is something that cannot be argued. There was a book that came out a number of years ago by Senator William Roth (for whom the ROTH IRA is named after) called "The Power to Destroy" and if you read that thing it will piss you off more than anything.

It does make you wonder about how far our country has gotten away from our roots when slaves, at the most, would have to give 10% of the fruits of their labor to their masters. We work half the year now to pay our "fair shair" to the government.

And also, wasn't our country founded on a tax rebellion? Wasn't it fashionable to tar and feather the tax collectors? I'm not advocating violence but in 200 years, we've fallen pretty far off the mark from what the founding fathers envisioned a free society to be.

Here is your answer

The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). A motion for summary judgment may be granted where there is no dispute as to a material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(a) and (b). 4 HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Craig v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 252, 260 (2002); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts which show that a question of genuine material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations [*8] or denials in the pleadings. See Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986).

 

[ionlyknowy]

If you go to court, this is what your case will look like.... I copied and pasted this:


Petitioner has failed to set forth any grounds on which we could find that the Appeals Office erred in its determination that respondent could properly proceed with collection of petitioner's 1996 tax liabilities. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to summary judgment.

HN9Go to the description of this Headnote.Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000 whenever the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless or the taxpayer has instituted or pursued the proceeding [*12] primarily for delay.

SEC. 6673. SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS.

HN10Go to the description of this Headnote.(a) Tax Court Proceedings. --

(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc. --

whenever it appears to the Tax Court that --

(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or

maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,

(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is

frivolous or groundless, or

(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue

available administrative remedies, the Tax Court, in

its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the

United States a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000.

Petitioner appears to have instituted or maintained the instant case primarily as a protest against the Federal income tax. See, e.g. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986)(taxpayer's argument that he is not a taxpayer is frivolous); Tolotti v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2002-86 [*13] (taxpayer's argument that Commissioner must identify constitutional and statutory provisions that make taxpayer liable for Federal income tax is frivolous), affd. 70 Fed. Appx. 971 (9th Cir. 2003). HN11Go to the description of this Headnote.We shall not refute frivolous arguments with copious citation and extended discussion. Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138-139 (2000) (citing Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)). Respondent informed petitioner that petitioner risked monetary penalty by making such arguments, but petitioner continued to waste the limited resources of the Federal tax system. Consequently, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), we shall require petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty of $ 10,000.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.

 

[randolphus maximus]

Also, keep in mind, if you take on the IRS, you have to bear the consequences of your actions. They do act like a criminal organization, they lie, steal, cheat, and ARBITRARILY enforce the law. I'm telling you, read Senator Roth's book "The Power to Destroy" and it will make you throw up and piss you off at the same time.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Well whether it's unconstitutional or not, one thing that is for sure is that the way the IRS COLLECTS the tax is unconstitutional. That is something that cannot be argued. There was a book that came out a number of years ago by Senator William Roth (for whom the ROTH IRA is named after) called "The Power to Destroy" and if you read that thing it will piss you off more than anything.

It does make you wonder about how far our country has gotten away from our roots when slaves, at the most, would have to give 10% of the fruits of their labor to their masters. We work half the year now to pay our "fair shair" to the government.

And also, wasn't our country founded on a tax rebellion? Wasn't it fashionable to tar and feather the tax collectors? I'm not advocating violence but in 200 years, we've fallen pretty far off the mark from what the founding fathers envisioned a free society to be.

for the most part I agree that America has fallen way away from our founders original intent. No one likes paying so many taxes. But, there is an economic argument for the income tax.

Suppose they cut all of these taxes for everyone, then everyone has more money all of a sudden... In the short term, everyone will have a much much larger purchasing power...(kinda like when the fed prints the money and loans it to the govt. for military spending, more purchase power, then it trickles down to the people who see the inflation and less purchase power, RP talks about this) But just like when money grows on trees, money will lose it's value since everyone has more of it, and there is only a finite amount of goods and people to perform services. Then prices will rise, so supply will meet demand again, in the long run. Then you have no income tax, but you are back where you started with the same purchasing power....

 

[Edu]

Stop quoting tax court. Stop!

That's the same thing as agreeing to arbitration. You go to their court (which isn't a court) where they make the rules and you lose. Should never go to tax court, no one has to. Go read about it.

And just recently snipes got a jury, so give up on that line of thought.

And STATUTES are the law, not codes. And law only applies where there is jurisdiction, it can't apply everywhere, and mostly fed stuff is within their 10 square miles. Do more research please.

Congress has never amended the constitution to allow direct taxes, and the amendment you are thinking of does not create any new taxing power, SCOTUS said so, look it up. And it makes sense since they are actually using their power to tax what they own (you let them own you and keep confirming it over and over, go do research please).

However, the argument of "there is no law" works because they don't want to drop to the next level and just tell people that they are slaves, owned, property of the government (with a SS Serial Number, property tag, mooooo cattle tag). They don't have to tell you.

Oh, and when jurisdiction is challenged it must be answered and proved, and if you are wondering where all the case law is, if it gets dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where does it end up? And really it never gets started since you can move against them for messing with you in the first place, especially if they know they don't have authority in the first place.

Property shouldn't argue with their master, property must do what it is told to do.

Do you get it yet?

 

[ionlyknowy]

Stop quoting tax court. Stop!

That's the same thing as agreeing to arbitration. You go to their court (which isn't a court) where they make the rules and you lose. Should never go to tax court, no one has to. Go read about it.

And just recently snipes got a jury, so give up on that line of thought.

And STATUTES are the law, not codes. And law only applies where there is jurisdiction, it can't apply everywhere, and mostly fed stuff is within their 10 square miles. Do more research please.

Congress has never amended the constitution to allow direct taxes, and the amendment you are thinking of does not create any new taxing power, SCOTUS said so, look it up. And it makes sense since they are actually using their power to tax what they own (you let them own you and keep confirming it over and over, go do research please).

However, the argument of "there is no law" works because they don't want to drop to the next level and just tell people that they are slaves, owned, property of the government (with a SS Serial Number, property tag, mooooo cattle tag). They don't have to tell you.

Oh, and when jurisdiction is challenged it must be answered and proved, and if you are wondering where all the case law is, if it gets dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where does it end up? And really it never gets started since you can move against them for messing with you in the first place, especially if they know they don't have authority in the first place.

Property shouldn't argue with their master, property must do what it is told to do.

Do you get it yet?

UM, not all of the cites are tax court guy.

Dont come here and make claims without citing the case. I need case cites.... If you want more cases deciding Tax Protest args, that arent tax court then just let me know I will be happy to post them..

 

[ionlyknowy]

Read this, this is a case where the guy brought up the 16th amendment arg.

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 242 (7th Cir. 1989)
16th Amendment not ratified correctly

The legislative history of these provisions makes it clear that in this case as well as in his two previous actions, Miller has sought to turn the judicial review procedure of § 6703 on its head by making it a vehicle for challenging the constitutionality [**10] of the sixteenth amendment. Miller's repeated abuse of § 6703 to press his stale constitutional claims has confounded Congress' larger and unquestionably legitimate aim of maintaining the integrity of the income tax system. Senate Report, at 1025.

Our research into the practice employed by Miller and the issues he has attempted to raise reveals a troubling pattern of similar cases. Schoffner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 812 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1987) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection); Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and series of constitutional objections); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1985) (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket constitutional objections); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1984) [**11] (challenge to frivolous penalty assessment for filing return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment and other constitutional objections); Parker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984) (challenge to tax deficiency determination and penalty for filing an inappropriate return containing asterisks and blanket fifth amendment objection).

As best we can surmise, Miller, like the plaintiffs in the foregoing cases, has followed the advice of those associated with the "tax protester movement." The leaders of this movement conduct seminars across the country in which they attempt to convince taxpayers that the sixteenth amendment and assorted enforcement provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional. See, e.g. United States v. Hairston, 819 F.2d 971, 972 (10th Cir. 1987). Members are encouraged to defy the income tax filing requirements through returns like those noted above. They are then instructed to obtain a jury trial so that potentially like-minded jurors may be persuaded to acquit in the exercise of their power of jury nullification. See, e.g., United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 236-237 (10th Cir. 1979). [**12] The movement's manifesto, Benson and Beckman's The Law That Never Was, is a collection of documents relating to the ratification of the sixteenth amendment, and is intended to be both a call to arms for the movement and "exhibit A" in the trials of tax protesters who argue that the sixteenth amendment was illegally ratified. Id. at xvii ("The tax protestor will be the great American hero of 1985 just as in 1776. It was tax protestors, not any political party, or judge or prosecutor who gave us our great Constitutional Republican form of government. The tax protest is more American than baseball, hot dogs, apple pie or Chevrolet!!").

In the eyes of the authors, the most damning evidence of the illegality of sixteenth amendment is a 1913 memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State to then Secretary of State Knox outlining the minor grammatical discrepancies in the instruments ratified in many of the states. This circuit has squarely addressed the merits of the ratification argument in two recent cases. United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir. 1986) HN5

[**13] (73 years of application of the amendment is very persuasive on the question of validity); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986) (amendment treated as properly adopted under the "enrolled bill rule"). In Thomas, we explained that:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal [*241] instruments of the ratification to the Secretary of State. . . . Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. . . . [the defendant] insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized [**14] to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . [his] decision is now beyond review.

Id. at 1253 (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1036, 93 L. Ed. 2d 840, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987) (propriety of the ratification process is a political question).

We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916), and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure. See Foster, 789 F.2d at 463 n.6 (the propriety of the ratification of a constitutional amendment may be a non-justiciable political question). Determined and persistent tax protesters like Miller seek to utilize the federal judicial forum without consideration of the significant limitations on the [**15] authority of both the district courts and the courts of appeal. One such limitation stems from HN6

the bedrock principle of stare decisis: lower courts are bound by the precedential authority of cases rendered by higher courts. U.S. Ex Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 1987). This limitation on judicial power is one of the cornerstones of the legal structure in that it serves broader societal interests such as the orderly and predictable application of legal rules. This doctrine prevents us from disregarding the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment. The Court's decisions are binding on us and the district court absent strong evidence that the Court will overrule its own cases. Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1987). We perceive no signs that the Supreme Court is harboring any such intentions with regard to the validity of the sixteenth amendment.

Miller would have us disregard this principle and overturn almost three quarters of a century of settled law and declare [**16] the sixteenth amendment unconstitutional. He has asked us and the district court to do that which we have no authority to do. He would have us substitute one brand of lawlessness (from his perspective) with a form of lawlessness of our own. Miller and his fellow protesters would be well advised to take their objections to the federal income tax structure to a more appropriate forum.

This advice has been offered on other occasions. Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th Cir. 1986) (tax protesters "must choose other forums, and there are many available"). In the circumstances, the sanctions imposed by the district court were appropriate. With particular reference to the injunction limiting Miller's access to the federal courts, we note that the district court was struggling with a persistent tax protester who was undaunted by his failure in two previous cases in as many years. A monetary sanction of $ 500 in the latter of those two cases did not prevent Miller from returning to the federal courthouse for yet a third time with the identical claims. The district court was thus faced with a plaintiff as intransigent as the tax protester we [**17] sanctioned in Lysiak v. C.I.R., 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987), and properly drew upon the injunctive relief we imposed in Lysiak to fashion a remedy to address the parallel strains that Miller's frivolous filings were having on its crowded docket and limited [*242] resources. Id. at 313. Miller may exercise his right to access the federal courts upon a simple showing that his claim is colorable. See Coleman, 791 F.2d at 72 (there is no constitutional right to bring a frivolous suit). We therefore reject Miller's claim that the sanctions were excessive and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The present appeal is a patently frivolous one that has generated additional costs for the defendants and this court. Five years ago we warned plaintiffs like Miller that while the doors of the courthouse are open to good faith appeals, "we can no longer tolerate abuse of the judicial review process by irresponsible taxpayers who press stale and frivolous arguments . . . In the future we will deal harshly with frivolous tax [**18] appeals and will not hesitate to impose sanctions under appropriate circumstances." Granzow v. C.I.R., 739 F.2d 265, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1984). This is such a circumstance. Although Miller is acting pro se, he knew or should have known that his position was groundless. Coleman, 791 F.2d at 71 (a court may and should impose sanctions if a person knows his position is groundless). Each of the three district judges before whom Miller has appeared have taken pains to explain the meritlessness of his position. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir. 1984) (reassertion of issues disposed of in prior proceedings is sanctionable). In conformity with our policy for such tax protester cases, Coleman, 791 F.2d at 73, we hereby sanction Miller $1500 in lieu of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 of the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.

The judgment of district court is affirmed, with double costs and $1500 in damages imposed against the plaintiff-appellant. Miller is ordered to make payment to the Clerk of this court within thirty (30) days by a check made payable to the U.S. Treasury.

So ordered.

 

[ionlyknowy]

want another one?

Notice the bold words at the end of the court case above... WHICH IS A FEDERAL COURT, NOT TAX COURT,

They fine the guy for making the arg. Just like Tax Court.

 

[randolphus maximus]

That's an argument similar to when a tornado or other natural disaster hits someplace and "the bright side" is that the economy will be boosted from the rebuilding. Which on its face sounds like a plus but doesn't take into account the fact that the people have to replace what they've lost. In other words, some parts of the economy may benefit, but overall the total economic benefit is usually nil or a negative.

Also, there is NEVER any economic argument for an income tax. NEVER. Especially the POS income tax that we have. It's arbitrary, capricious, and has NO place in a free society. It's a tool that is used by the government to control the people through fear. Disagree? Show me your tax return and I will show you who you are. No government needs that much information about its citizens. At least not one that's supposed to be limited in its power.

for the most part I agree that America has fallen way away from our founders original intent. No one likes paying so many taxes. But, there is an economic argument for the income tax.

Suppose they cut all of these taxes for everyone, then everyone has more money all of a sudden... In the short term, everyone will have a much much larger purchasing power...(kinda like when the fed prints the money and loans it to the govt. for military spending, more purchase power, then it trickles down to the people who see the inflation and less purchase power, RP talks about this) But just like when money grows on trees, money will lose it's value since everyone has more of it, and there is only a finite amount of goods and people to perform services. Then prices will rise, so supply will meet demand again, in the long run. Then you have no income tax, but you are back where you started with the same purchasing power....

 

[ionlyknowy]

That's an argument similar to when a tornado or other natural disaster hits someplace and "the bright side" is that the economy will be boosted from the rebuilding. Which on its face sounds like a plus but doesn't take into account the fact that the people have to replace what they've lost. In other words, some parts of the economy may benefit, but overall the total economic benefit is usually nil or a negative.

Also, there is NEVER any economic argument for an income tax. NEVER. Especially the POS income tax that we have. It's arbitrary, capricious, and has NO place in a free society. It's a tool that is used by the government to control the people through fear. Disagree? Show me your tax return and I will show you who you are. No government needs that much information about its citizens. At least not one that's supposed to be limited in its power.

No I agree with you, that we are taxed too much... And that we would be better off if we didnt have the income tax. It's just I had to give the other side of the arg. in preparation for my exams coming up..lol..