- 6 -
gibberish without any actual legal basis. Further, petitioners
did not file a proper amended petition as directed by the Court
in its Order dated February 20, 1998.
Petitioners are subject to the Federal income tax system the
same as other citizens of the United States. Having made up
their minds, petitioners do not seek to understand the law. They
merely seek to justify a position that they have already decided
to take. Nevertheless, we shall address some of their points.
By law, enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code is to be
performed "by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the
Treasury." Sec. 7801. Under section 7802(a):
(a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue.--There shall
be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall
have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury.
Contrary to petitioners' argument, there is, in fact and in law,
an IRS. See Salman v. Department of Treasury--Internal Revenue
Service, 899 F. Supp. 471, 472 (D. Nev. 1995) (recognizing "a
host of Constitutional and statutory provisions that establish
the IRS is indeed a federal agency"; argument to the contrary was
found to be "wholly frivolous").
Petitioners argue that paying Federal income tax is
"voluntary", a misleading concept at best. Our Federal income
tax system provides for voluntary or self-assessment. See sec.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011