- 8 -
he received wages in compensation for his services. Petitioner
further admitted at trial that he received, for 1994, wages of
$21,513 in compensation for his services, interest income of $55,
taxable IRA distribution of $4, and a State income tax refund of
$337. Petitioner contends, however, that this income is not
subject to Federal income taxation because the words "income" and
"U.S. Individual" are not defined in the Internal Revenue Code,
and there is no explanation in the Internal Revenue Code of who
is subject to Federal income taxes. Petitioner also asserts a
series of disjointed and unsupported tax protester arguments such
as "the income tax is voluntary", "compensation is an direct item
of income not taxable by the federal government", "the 16th
amendment and the income tax is limited to indirect excise
taxes", and so forth. Petitioner did not challenge the amounts
of income determined by respondent and made no claim to
deductions, exemptions, or credits.7
All of the arguments advanced by petitioner are completely
lacking in factual and legal foundation and constitute a textbook
case of a protest of the Federal tax laws. These types of tax
protester arguments have been heard on numerous occasions by this
7
Even though petitioner took the position that none of his
income was taxable, in his petition, he made no claim for an
overpayment of taxes for 1992 in excess of the amount abated by
respondent. As noted earlier, the only income adjustment for
1992 is the $2,040.63 for recovery of the $574 tax abatement by
respondent based on petitioner's September 1992 refund claim.
See supra note 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011