- 8 -
factual evidence or to dispute any facts in these cases.2
Instead, petitioners argue that the notices of deficiency issued
to them are invalid (and, therefore, respondent has fraudulently
induced them to file Tax Court petitions) because
(1) respondent's assessment and collection authority has been
transferred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
(BATF); (2) there are no implementing regulations for
respondent's assessment and collection authority; and (3) title
26 of the U.S. Code has not been enacted into law.
Mr. Stafford raised identical arguments regarding the BATF
and a lack of implementing regulations in Stafford v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-50. These arguments were rejected
in that case, and Mr. Stafford was first advised of their lack of
merit in a pretrial order on May 24, 1996. As in the previous
case, these arguments provide no basis for denying summary
judgment. Moreover, petitioners' additional argument that title
26 of the U.S. Code has never been enacted into law is frivolous3
2 Mrs. Stafford's petition recites that she was unaware of
her obligation to report her share of community property income
although she did not raise this point in response to respondent's
motion for summary judgment or in any other filings with the
Court. In any event, it is well settled that, under the
circumstances here presented, one spouse is required to report as
income his or her share of the other spouse's earnings. See
Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122 (1930); Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S.
101 (1930).
3 The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83d
Congress on Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011