- 5 -
authority of the United States to tax his income. At trial, we
reserved our right to rule on that motion at a later time; we
proceeded under the assumption that this Court has jurisdiction.
OPINION
Issue 1. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Petitioner asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction to
hear his case. Respondent asserts that petitioner's arguments
are standard tax protester rhetoric and have long since been
rejected by this Court.
It suffices to say that petitioner chose this forum in which
to litigate his tax dispute. The Court acquired jurisdiction in
this case after a valid notice of deficiency was sent to
petitioner, and he in turn filed a timely petition. Secs.
6212(a) and (b), 6213(a); Minovich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-39. Once the Court's jurisdiction is invoked, it remains
unimpaired until we decide the controversy. Dorl v.
Commissioner, 57 T.C. 720, 722 (1972), affd. per curiam without
opinion 507 F.2d 406 (2d Cir. 1974). Accordingly, petitioner's
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied.
Issue 2. Unreported Income
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's gross
income for the years at issue. Petitioner asserts that he is a
nonresident alien "without" the taxing authority of the United
States. Respondent asserts that petitioner is liable for tax on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011