- 8 -
respond to the Court's orders. Rather, petitioner elected to
continue to proceed with time-worn tax protester rhetoric. See
Abrams v. Commissioner, supra; Rowlee v. Commissioner, supra;
McCoy v. Commissioner, supra; Karlin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1990-496.
We see no need to catalog petitioner's contentions and
painstakingly address them. We have dealt with many of them
before. E.g., Nieman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-533;
Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, affd. without
published opinion 42 F.3d 1391 (7th Cir. 1994). Moreover, as the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive
no need to refute these arguments 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). The short answer to
petitioner's arguments is that he is not exempt from Federal
income tax or from the imposition of appropriate additions to
tax. See Abrams v. Commissioner, supra at 406-407.
Because petitioner's pleadings do not state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, we shall grant respondent's motion
to dismiss. See Scherping v. Commissioner, 747 F.2d 478 (8th
Cir. 1984).
We turn now, on our own motion, to the award of a penalty
against petitioner under section 6673(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011