Maro Kelven Arredondo - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          the Internal Revenue Code makes him liable for any income taxes             
          because, inter alia, the income tax is an excise tax that can be            
          assessed only against those who are either licensed or                      
          incorporated.  Thus, the petition includes the following                    
          allegations:                                                                
               1) No where in subtitle A can a code be found making me                
               liable for an "Income Tax".  * * *                                     
                              *   *   *   *   *   *   *                               
               6) The mission statement of the Internal Revenue                       
               Service stating that the Income Tax relied upon                        
               "voluntary compliance" and a statement from the Head of                
               the Alcohol and Tobacco tax division of the IRS which                  
               in essence showed that the Income Tax is 100% voluntary                
               as opposed to the Alcohol and Tax which is 100%                        
               enforced. [Errors in the original.]                                    
               7) Since I'm not enjoying any corporate privileges nor                 
               am I engaged in any privileged occupation that                         
               Income or Earnings from the exercise of common right                   
               could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise. [Errors                  
               in the original.]                                                      

          Respondent's Rule 40 Motion and Subsequent Developments                     
               As indicated, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For                 
          Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.2  On             
          January 29, 1996, shortly after respondent filed her motion to              
          dismiss, the Court issued and served an order calendaring                   
          respondent's motion for hearing and also directing petitioner to            


          2 Respondent subsequently supplemented her motion to dismiss                
          to account for a computational error in the determination of the            
          deficiency for 1993.  Respondent now contends that the deficiency           
          for that year should be $4,290, rather than $4,293 as determined            
          in the notice of deficiency.                                                




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011