- 6 -
This matter was called for hearing in Washington, D.C.
Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented
argument in opposition to the pending motion. Although
petitioner did not appear at the hearing, he did file a written
statement with the Court pursuant to Rule 50(c), in response to
respondent's objection to his motion. In that statement,
petitioner asserts that the compensation that he receives in
exchange for his labor is not income as defined in the Internal
Revenue Code. Petitioner also contends that he is not subject to
the Federal income tax because he is a "Self-governing Free Born
Sovereign Citizen". Significantly, petitioner admits that he
receives compensation from the operation of a chiropractic
business. He asserts that any gains earned on his investments do
not constitute taxable income.
Discussion
We begin with the well-settled rule that determinations made
by the Commissioner in a notice of deficiency normally are
presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
proving that those determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In addition, this
Court ordinarily will not look behind a statutory notice of
deficiency to examine the evidence used or the propriety of
respondent's motives or conduct in determining the deficiency.
Riland v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 201 (1982); Greenberg's
Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011