- 8 -
"Motion for More Definite Statement", which was filed as
petitioner's Second Motion for More Definite Statement.
Regarding the documents received August 10, 1995, the Court
granted petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Brief in Support of
Rule 50(c) Statement, and then filed (a) petitioner's Brief in
Support of Rule 50(c) Statement and (b) petitioner's Appendix to
Brief in Support of Rule 50(c) Statement. The Court denied
petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and petitioner's Second
Motion for More Definite Statement.
In his Amended Petition and Amendment thereto, as well as in
his other most recently filed documents, petitioner repeats many
of the allegations set forth in his original petition,
particularly his argument that section 83 shields his
compensation from taxation.6 Thus, the Amendment to the Amended
Petition includes the following allegation:
Code � 83 applies to all compensation for services
and allows only for the excess over the "amount paid"
(value of the Labor) to be included in gross income;
NOT the "amount paid" (cost). Respondent is in
violation of 26 USC � 83.
Respondent's motion to dismiss was called for hearing in
Washington, D.C., on August 16, 1995. Counsel for respondent
appeared at the hearing and presented argument on the pending
motion, including the argument that section 83 is inapplicable to
6 Petitioner appears to have abandoned, however, his
argument that sec. 7701(e) shields his compensation from
taxation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011