- 5 -
was no compensation, no profit and no gain realized
from any activity subjected to an excise tax. [4]
The Petitioner is a natural person engaged in an
occupation of common law right. He holds no license or
privilege subject to an excise and he is not one of the
entities made liable for an income tax pursuant to
Subtitle A.
The Petitioner is not a taxpayer.
Petitioner does allege, in the alternative to the foregoing
and similar tax protester-type arguments, that if his
compensation for services rendered "were arguably determined to
be income", then he is entitled to deduct "all money spent in
order to earn money pursuant to IRC Section 162", as well as "a
number of itemized deductions".
In her answer, respondent denied virtually all of
petitioner's allegations.
Pre-trial Developments
On January 17, 1996, the Court served on the parties a
Notice setting this case for trial at the Indianapolis, Indiana
trial session scheduled to commence on March 25, 1996. The
Notice advised, inter alia, as follows:
YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE
CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST YOU.
YOUR FAILURE TO COOPERATE MAY ALSO RESULT IN DISMISSAL
OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST YOU.
4 Earlier in the petition, petitioner alleges that "The
Deficiencies as determined by the Commissioner are in taxes
imposed by Subtitle A of Title 26 which the Petitioner believes
to be in the nature of excise taxes". Contrary to petitioner's
"belief", subtitle A of Title 26 deals with income taxes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011