James E. Stafford - Page 10

                                       - 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