Sarah A. Bland-Barclay and Francis Barclay - Page 6
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2002 > Sarah A. Bland-Barclay and Francis Barclay - Page 6
- 6 -
On November 9, 2000, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that the period of limitations for assessment under
section 6501 and section 301.6501(a)-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
had expired. At the call of the trial calendar in Baltimore on
November 27, 2001, the Court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss, and, after due consideration, denied petitioners’
motion. The case was then set for trial on November 30, 2001.
At trial, and subsequently in brief, petitioner continued to
argue that this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
because as citizens of the Maryland Republic petitioners are
exempt from the Federal income tax law, that the United States
Constitution forbids taxation of compensation received for
personal service, and that the Commissioner is without authority
to act absent self-assessment and voluntary compliance.
Specifically, petitioner argues that all income reported on the
Forms W-2, with the exception of income received from Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, an agency of the Federal
government, does not constitute gross income subject to Federal
income tax, and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to a refund.
This Court and Federal courts across the nation have
repeatedly rejected the argument that wages do not constitute
income and that reporting and paying income taxes is strictly
voluntary. Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988). We
find petitioners’ arguments baseless and wholly without merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Speak with a Lawyer in Your Neighborhood
Last modified: May 25, 2011