- 3 -
of the United States"2 and "liable for the taxes levied by the
United States Congress"; (2) the "Commissioner arbitrarily and
erroneously determined that petitioner received income"; and (3)
the United States Tax Court lacks the authority to render a
decision in this case because it is not an Article III Court
under the Constitution, and, therefore, without jurisdiction.
Petitioner makes further allegations in the petition, which are
common in tax protester petitions, regarding the allegedly
unconstitutional nonapportioned direct tax, the applicability of
the Administrative Procedure Act, and the method in which he was
selected for audit, as well as the audit techniques utilized by
respondent.
In her motion to dismiss, respondent contends that the
petition fails to allege clear and concise assignments of error
in respondent's deficiency determination in violation of Rule
34(b)(4). Further, respondent contends that the petition fails
to allege clear and concise lettered statements of fact on which
petitioner bases the assignments of error, in violation of Rule
34(b)(5).
The Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for May 13,
1996, in Los Angeles, California. On that date petitioner did
not appear, but instead filed a Statement in Lieu of Appearance
2 Petitioner alleges that he is an American citizen, but
not a U.S. citizen. Petitioner's address set forth in the
petition is in Sun Valley, California.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011