- 10 -
judgment, petitioner failed to mention any Fifth Amendment claim.
In these circumstances, we believe that petitioner abandoned
whatever Fifth Amendment privilege he may have sought to raise in
the petition.8
In his response to respondent's motion for summary judgment,
petitioner repeats the principal grounds he has asserted
throughout the case against respondent's determination; namely,
that respondent lacks authority to assess or collect the taxes at
issue in this case because either (1) such authority has been
transferred to the BATF, or (2) there are no regulations
implementing the assessment and collection provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code.9
As to the BATF transfer argument, petitioner asserts that
Treasury Department Order 221, 1972-1 C.B. 777, transferred
various chapters of the U.S. Code, including chapters 63 and 64,
from title 26 of that Code to title 27 of that Code.
8 Petitioner's Fifth Amendment assertion was made, in any
event, in connection with a blanket refusal to furnish any
information with respect to his income tax liability, which is
not protected under the Fifth Amendment. United States v.
Johnson, 577 F.2d 1304, 1311 (5th Cir. 1978); see also United
States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927).
9 A review of petitioner's filings in this case reveals one
additional argument, namely, certain alleged defects in a levy
action against petitioner, including what petitioner argues are
false or misleading statements in Form 668-W, Notice of Levy on
Wages, Salary and Other Income. The short answer to petitioner's
argument is that it has no application in this case. The Form
668-W relates to tax years 1980 and 1981. Neither of these tax
years is before the Court, and no issue regarding a levy has been
raised in these proceedings.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011