- 9 -
contract, whether the contract is verbal, expressed or
implied. * * *
In his first amended petition, petitioner thereafter sought
the following relief from this Court:
A. Dismiss the Petition for Lack of Subject matter
jurisdiction as determination of the amounts received
would require determination of taxes and amounts paid
under Subtitle C of Title 26 U.S.C. and this Court is
not granted subject matter jurisdiction over Subtitle
C.
B. Otherwise dismiss the Commissioner's Notice of
Deficiency; and,
C. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled to the
filing status of married filing jointly for the
purposes of determining the amount of any liability.
D. Declare that IRC, �1015(a) would generally
establish a presumption that a Man has a basis (cost)
equal to or greater than the amount he received for the
sale of his labor.
E. Declare that the Respondent has the burden of
proof of showing that the Petitioner had a basis (cost)
other than a basis (cost) equal to or greater than the
amount he received for the sale of his labor; and,
F. Declare that the Petitioner had a basis (cost)
equal to or greater than the amount he received for the
sale of his labor during the years 1992, 1993 and 1994;
* * *
In order to avoid our granting of respondent's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim in this case, filed July 25,
1997, petitioner filed a second amended petition in which he
omitted the frivolous assertions contained in his first amended
petition. Nonetheless, we find that petitioner's position in
this case, which has its genesis in common tax protester
rhetoric, is utterly frivolous and was designed to delay his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011