- 4 -
Petitioner filed this petition as a protest to paying
income taxes. Such an action falls within the conduct
proscribed by I.R.C � 6673.
On February 20, 1996, shortly after respondent filed her
motion to dismiss, the Court issued an order calendaring
respondent's motion for hearing and also directing petitioner to
file a proper amended petition in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 34. Specifically, the Court directed
petitioner to file, by March 14, 1996, an amended petition
setting forth with specificity each error allegedly made by
respondent in the determination of the deficiencies and separate
statements of every fact upon which the assignments of error are
based.
Petitioner failed to respond to the Court's order to file an
amended petition. However, on March 12, 1996, petitioner filed
his Motion For Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction. In his
motion, petitioner continues to argue that compensation is not
taxable. In addition, petitioner alleges in his motion, inter
alia, that "Petitioner is not a taxpayer within the purview of
the Internal Revenue Code", that "Petitioner is not located in
any area of jurisdiction subject to the United States Congress",
and that "The United States Government is a foreign corporation
with respect to the states". Petitioner's motion concludes, in
part, as follows:
Unless this Court can clearly state that the several
states united have been overthrown and conquered by
Congress, this Court is without jurisdiction relating
to matters outside its venue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011