- 4 -
persuasive when they came to petitioners' attention, but which
the Court for the most part regards as timeworn, tired, tax
protester rhetoric. The letter also asserts that the Internal
Revenue Code fails to define the term “income”, that the income
tax is “voluntary” and that petitioners do not choose to
participate, and that the Code does not impose a liability for
income tax on individual human beings, as opposed to “persons”, a
term that primarily connotes, in petitioners' view, artificial
legal entities such as corporations. On August 29, 1996,
respondent timely filed an answer that put the case at issue.
On May 6, 1997, the Court served its notice of trial, with
standing pretrial order attached, calendaring the case for the
Court's October 14, 1997, trial session to be held in New York
City. On July 30, 1997, respondent filed a request for
admissions, and on September 2, 1997, filed a motion to compel
production of documents and a motion for summary judgment, each
of which had been served on petitioners. On September 18, 1997,
the Court received and filed, as petitioners' response to
respondent's motion for summary judgment, petitioner's letter
stating that he had moved with his family to Oregon to take new
employment. The Court thereupon denied respondent's motions
without prejudice, vacated the deemed admissions (petitioners
later responded timely to the requests for admission), changed
petitioners' address on the Court's records, retained
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011