Henry F. Wesselman - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          in the Federal Register; (b) the statutory notice of deficiency             
          contains information from respondent's "Business Master File" and           
          petitioner is "not in any business of any kind"; (c) he reserves            
          all his "remedies as for [sic] the Uniform Commercial Code";                
          (d) he is not a United States citizen (but admits being born in             
          Illinois); (e) he does not know what tax return to file because             
          there is no OMB (Office of Management and Budget) number and                
          expiration date on Form 1040; and (f) the income tax only applies           
          to the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico.                         
               Many of petitioner's arguments were in the form of a                   
          question, such as "What IRS director -- district director am I              
          dealing with? Is it Guam? Is it Puerto Rico?"  Although                     
          admonished more than once by the Court that the pertinent                   
          question for the hearing was whether there was a factual dispute            
          about his receipt of unreported income in the years at issue,               
          petitioner presented only nonsensical "legal" tax protester                 
          arguments.                                                                  
          Discussion                                                                  
               Rule 1213 provides that either party may move for summary              
          adjudication upon all or any of the legal issues in dispute if              
          the moving party can show that there is no genuine issue as to              



          3Rule 121 is derived from Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.  Therefore,                   
          authorities interpreting the latter will be considered by the               
          Court in applying our Rule.  Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.              
          412, 415-416 (1982).                                                        




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011