Robert E. Dunham - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

          tax by treaty.  In a statement attached to the forms, petitioner            
          reported that he resided in Arkansas, USA.  Petitioner denied               
          that he was a U.S. citizen or a resident of a State subject to              
          U.S. sovereignty.  He also denied that he was a nonresident alien           
          engaged in a trade or business within the United States.                    
          Petitioner reported that the $65,000 in income that he received             
          was "exempted from U.S. tax imposition pursuant to the United               
          States tax convention of September 17, 1787" (citing U.S. Const.            
          art. I, sec. 2; sec. 894 (Income Affected by Treaty)).                      
               In September 1995, petitioner submitted a fourth set of                
          documents to the IRS for each of the years in issue.  The                   
          documents were entitled "Statement in Lieu of Return" and                   
          reported that petitioner received $65,000 per year in Federal               
          Reserve Notes.  Among other declarations, petitioner stated that            
          the Federal Reserve Notes were not income because they were not             
          redeemable in gold or silver and do not constitute payment in               
          U.S. dollars.  Petitioner deducted a $65,000 fair market value              
          from the amount of Federal Reserve Notes that he received and               
          calculated "0" income and no tax owed.                                      
               The petition in this case does not allege any factual basis            
          that establishes error in respondent's deficiency determination.            
          Instead, the petition, along with other pleadings, contains tax             
          protester arguments.  Petitioner did not cooperate with                     
          respondent during the preparation of this case.  During the audit           





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