Donald Walker, a.k.a. Theonaleth - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          Petitioner also claims he is a non-domestic/non-resident/non-               
          taxpayer.                                                                   
               Petitioner makes similar contentions in his second amended             
          petition.  He also asserts that "The wage tax cases [Abrams] v.             
          Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 1984 - [Connor] v. Commissioner, 770              
          F 2 d 17 [2 cir. 1985] HAVE NO FOUNDATION".  We disagree.  As the           
          Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated:  "A taxpayer has            
          no constitutional right to bring frivolous lawsuits."  Connor v.            
          Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1985), affg. per curiam an           
          unreported Order of this Court.  The Second Circuit is the court            
          to which an appeal of this case may be taken.                               
               Petitioner made additional arguments which we reject.                  
          Suffice it to say that petitioner is not exempt from Federal                
          income tax.  Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 407 (1984).               
          Payments of compensation for services performed are income.  Sec.           
          61(a)(1).                                                                   
               In his amended petition and second amended petition,                   
          petitioner makes tax protester arguments that have been                     
          repeatedly rejected by this Court and others as inapplicable or             
          without merit.  See, e.g., Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111             
          (1983); McCoy v.Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d           
          1234 (9th Cir. 1983).  We see no need to repeat these discussions           
          here.                                                                       
               Rule 34(b)(4) and (5) provides in pertinent part that the              
          petition in a deficiency action shall contain "Clear and concise            
          assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011