- 8 -
reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Nonetheless, it
is clear from petitioners' response to respondent's motion that
petitioners contend that they were not required, as a matter of
law, to file returns for the years at issue. Such a contention
and the reasons therefor which are stated in that response are
frivolous and groundless.3 We find that petitioners are liable
for each of the years 1992, 1993, and 1994 for the addition to
tax under section 6651(a)(1).
From the time petitioners filed the petition herein through
the filing of their response to respondent’s motion, they have
3 In petitioners’ response to respondent’s motion,
petitioners assert, inter alia:
Only an “individual” is required to file a tax
return (26 USC 6012) and then only under certain
circumstances. In looking at Section 7701(a)(30), I/we
understand that a “United States Person” as meaning a
“citizen of the United States,” “resident of the United
States.” “domestic corporation,” “domestic partnership”
and a “domestic trust or estate.” There is no
INDIVIDUAL defined under 7701(a)(30) and therefore I/we
cannot be an “individual” within the meaning of
7701(a)(1) and/or 26 USC 6012. Also, the Supreme
Court, in the case of Wills vs Michigan State Police,
105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) made it perfectly clear that
I/we, the sovereigns, cannot be named in any statute as
merely a “person,” or “any person.” I/we are members
of the “sovereignty” as defined in Yick Wo vs Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 and the Dred Scott case, 60 U.S. 393.
Therefore I/we want you to know we have filed 1040's
with “0’s” knowing we are exempt. Therefore, and until
you can prove otherwise, I/we are not a “taxpayer,” nor
an “individual” that is required to file a tax return.
Please forward me/us a letter stating that I/we are not
liable for any future tax returns, or produce the
documentation that requires me/us to file. * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011