- 7 -
The petition filed in this case does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is neither
assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support of any
justiciable claim. Rather, there is nothing but tax protester
rhetoric and legalistic gibberish, as demonstrated by the
passages from the petition previously quoted. See Abrams v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.
1111 (1983); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027 (1981), affd.
696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Court's order dated January 29, 1996, provided
petitioner with an opportunity to assign error and allege
specific facts concerning his liability for the taxable years in
issue. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to respond to the
Court's order. We see no need to catalog petitioner's arguments
and painstakingly address them. 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). Suffice it to say that individuals are subject
to the income tax under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.
E.g., Zyglis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-341, affd. without
published opinion 29 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 1994). See sec. 1(a)-(d).
Moreover, petitioner's claim that the income tax is an excise tax
that can only be assessed against those who are either licensed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011