Anthony P. Hart - Page 4
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2001 > Anthony P. Hart - Page 4
- 4 -
income taxes on his income because: (1) The income tax is an
“excise tax”, and he did not engage in any “excise taxable
activity”, (2) the income tax is applicable only to nonresidents,
and to earnings by residents from sources outside the United
States, and (3) “No law requires petitioner to sign a document
under penalty of perjury and no law requires him to file a 1040
tax return.” Petitioner, of course, cites no relevant authority
in support of his theories.2 Petitioner also had the temerity to
ask for $10,000 in sanctions against respondent because he had to
respond to respondent’s deficiency notice.
Long before petitioner filed his trial brief, respondent had
provided petitioner with copies of this Court’s opinions in
Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983), and Grimes v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 235 (1984). In both cases, this Court
specifically rejected (with copious citation of authorities) the
arguments, advanced here by petitioner, that wages are not
subject to tax as income.3 Thus, petitioner was well aware when
2Petitioner cites a single case, Stanton v. Baltic Mining
Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), which upheld the validity of a tax on a
mining company under the income tax section of the Tariff Act of
Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166, 181. Petitioner appears to
cite the case for the proposition that the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution does not permit Congress to impose a tax on income.
Petitioner’s argument is, of course, utter nonsense. The text of
the amendment could not be clearer in establishing the power of
Congress to impose and collect income taxes.
3Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983), sustained the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011