- 4 -
Petitioner3 filed a petition for redetermination on April
20, 1995. The crux of petitioner's position in the petition
appears to be that the Commissioner may determine a deficiency
against a taxpayer only if the taxpayer first files a return and
that the Commissioner's preparation of a return for the taxpayer
pursuant to section 6020(b) does not obviate the need for a
return filed by the taxpayer himself or herself.
On May 30, 1995, petitioner sua sponte filed an amended
petition. The amended petition includes allegations that wages
are not income because a person's labor is property in which the
person has a basis equal to its fair market value. Thus, the
amended petition alleges in part as follows:
During the years of 1990, 1991, and 1992 the
Petitioner did in fact receive payment for services
actually rendered in a fair market value exchange under
26 USC �83, �1001, �1011 and �1012 not comprising
taxable income, said acts performed as Unalienable
rights to life, liberty, pursue happiness and acquire
property, with labor being property.
At all times during the years of 1990, 1991 and
1992 any failure by the Respondent to recognize the
Unalienable Rights of the Petitioner and the Fair
Market Value Exchange of [her] labor in accordance with
26 USC �83, �1001, �1011 and �1012 would amount to a
denial of due process and constitutional and civil
rights violations.
2(...continued)
however, that what we say in respect of that docket applies
equally to docket No. 5932-95.
3 For the sake of convenience, we will refer to petitioner
Tashina Baker as petitioner. See supra note 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011