- 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
law.
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