- 5 -
dismissal for failure to state a claim), we believe it is
preferable, in the circumstances of this case, briefly to address
the issue raised by the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment.
Petitioner’s “Memorandum of Law”, which the Court filed as
her motion for summary judgment, looks like a canned brief. It
rehashes discredited arguments that the income tax is an indirect
tax or excise tax that cannot be laid upon property, that not
only an individual’s labor, but also the income therefrom, is his
or her property, that an excise tax is a privilege tax that it is
unlawful to impose upon the individual’s inalienable right to
exist, which includes his labor, and that the holdings of the
Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103
(1916), and Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), as
interpreted and applied in United States v. Gaumer, 972 F.2d 723,
724-725 (6th Cir. 1992), support her position.2
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials,
2 Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law makes no mention of the
argument in her petition regarding Title 27 C.F.R., and we deem
it to have been abandoned.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011