Laurel Ann Curtis - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
               23.  By law, Tax Court has no authority to decide                      
               matters of law or Constitutional issues.                               
               24.  The deficiency notices are null and void because                  
               they were issued in violation of procedures required by                
               25.  By law, Tax Court cannot acquire jurisdiction if                  
               petition is coerced or compelled under duress.                         
               26.  It is fact that a civil case is decided based upon                
               a preponderance of the evidence.  Petitioner gave                      
               evidence in sworn testimony that the deficiency notices                
               were not true.  All of this evidence and all of the                    
               other issues raised by petitioner went undenied,                       
               unchallenged and unrefuted by respondent and,                          
               therefore, must be considered by the Court to be true.                 
               Petitioner's contentions are typical tax-protester                     
          arguments, which have been rejected repeatedly by the courts.               
          For example, the Tax Court has jurisdiction to decide                       
          constitutional questions.  E.g., Rager v. Commissioner, 775 F.2d            
          1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding taxpayer’s argument to the              
          contrary to be frivolous), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-563.  An                   
          unapportioned income tax on real estate rents does not violate              
          the taxing clauses of the U.S. Constitution.  See Brushaber v.              
          Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916); see also New York ex             
          rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308, 314 (1937) (stating that a tax           
          on income from real property is different from a tax on the real            
          property itself, distinguishing Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust            
          Co., 157 U.S. 429, on rehearing 158 U.S. 601 (1895)); United                
          States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir.               
          1989) (imposing, sua sponte, sanctions on attorney for raising              
          unapportioned direct tax argument on appeal); Ficalora v.                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011