James Benjamin Wood III - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
               Throughout his section 6330 hearing, the petition, and                 
          several pounds of spurious materials that petitioner filed in               
          this case2 petitioner advanced shopworn arguments characteristic            
          of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by             
          this and other courts.  See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007           
          (9th Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; Carter v.                       
          Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Charczuk v.              
          Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo.               
          1983-433; Michael v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-26; Knelman v.           
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-268, affd. 33 Fed. Appx. 346 (9th             
          Cir. 2002).  We shall not painstakingly address petitioner’s                
          assertions “with somber reasoning and copious citation of                   
          precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some            
          colorable merit.”  Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417               
          (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).                                               
               Petitioner has failed to make a valid challenge of his                 
          underlying tax liabilities or to the appropriateness of                     
          respondent’s intended collection action, offer alternative means            




               2  For example, among other things, petitioner filed “Sworn            
          Suggestions of Intentional Policies and Practices of Jural Deceit           
          Evidenced by Consistent and Repeated Use of Unverified Process in           
          Response to Petitioner’s Verified Challenge” and “Notice of                 
          Corrections to Sworn Motion to Vacate Order Dated May 31, 2006              
          For Failure to Prove the Indispensable Prerequisite                         
          Jurisdictional Fact Following Petitioner’s Repeatedly Set Forth             
          Undisputedly Relevant and Verifiable Challenge”.                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007