Jeffrey Paul Schmidt - Page 4

                                           - 4 -                                             
          $17,000 in nonemployee compensation.  Also in 1989, petitioner                     
          worked as an employee for Applied Materials, Inc.  From this                       
          employment, petitioner received wages in the amount of $34,134.                    
          Petitioner also received wages in 1989 from Century Life of                        
          America in the amount of $49, a refund from the Franchise Tax                      
          Board of $17, and interest income of $1,131.                                       
                Petitioner sold his personal residence in 1989 for $145,000                  
          and realized gain on that sale in the amount of $14,973.83.                        
          Thereafter, petitioner did not purchase a principal residence                      
          within 2 years of the above-referenced sale of his personal                        
          residence.                                                                         
                In 1990, petitioner again worked as an employee for Applied                  
          Materials, Inc.  From this employment, petitioner received wages                   
          of $52,159.  Petitioner also received interest income in the 1990                  
          tax year in the amount of $1,110, and deferred compensation of                     
          $2,437.                                                                            
                In 1991, the last year in issue, petitioner again worked as                  
          an employee for Applied Materials, Inc.  From this employment,                     
          petitioner received wages of $59,266, and interest income of $34.                  
                On December 4, 1995, the date of trial, petitioner filed                     
          what he called an "entry of jurisdictional challenge, declaration                  
          and affidavit."  The document was filed as petitioner's motion to                  
          dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  In support of his motion,                       
          petitioner asserted lengthy tax protester rhetoric challenging                     
          the jurisdiction of the Tax Court and the Constitutional                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011