- 5 -
In the top right corner of the first page of the filed
return, Mr. Buck's Social Security number was entered in the
space entitled "Your social security number". Petitioner's
social security number was entered immediately below Mr. Buck's
in the space provided for "Spouse's social security number".
On June 30, 1995, petitioner filed a petition for
redetermination (the petition) in respect of the notice of
deficiency dated April 14, 1995. On that same day, petitioner
designated Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as the place of trial of this
case.6
The petition contains an allegation that the purported
return was "accepted" by respondent "for all purposes". The
petition contains a further allegation that assessment of any
deficiency against petitioner for the taxable year 1988 is barred
by the 3-year statute of limitations under section 6501(a).
Respondent filed an answer (the answer) to the petition on
August 30, 1995. The answer contains affirmative allegations
regarding the statute of limitations on assessment. Thus, the
answer alleges that the purported return was not a valid return
5(...continued)
perjury. Hence, the coercing of our signatures to the unbelieved
Form 1040 is not meaningful but illicit and renders them null and
void. It is nature's law that each person must live with his or
her own conscience, in peace or in conflict. We choose to live
in peace with ours. [Emphasis in the original.]
6 Although petitioner resided in Texas City, Texas, at the
time that the petition was filed, petitioner's counsel maintains
his office in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011