- 26 -
In response to the criminal investigation, petitioner wrote to
respondent on May 29, 1992, stating:
I HAVE DETERMINED FROM WRITTEN, RELIABLE LEGAL ADVICE
FROM TAX PROFESSIONALS AND FURTHER RESEARCH INTO THE
LAW, THAT I AM NOT LIABLE OR SUBJECT TO OR FOR ANY TAX
UNDER TITLE 26, AND NOTHING I RECEIVE IS SUBJECT TO TAX
UNDER SUBTITLE A. I AM NOT A ‘TAXPAYER’ AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 7701(A)(14)* * *”
The remainder of the letter contains the pseudolegal argument
that this Court has had occasion to refer to as tax protester
rhetoric and legalistic gibberish. See, e.g., Kearney v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-12. In September 1992, petitioner
was represented by an attorney who wrote respondent, in an effort
to avoid the criminal prosecution of his client, and described
petitioner as a “naive citizen exposed to ‘tax protestor’
rhetoric” and further stating:
When I [petitioner’s attorney] took the time to explain
in detail the process by which federal appeals courts
had rejected each of the positions on which he
[petitioner] had relied, Mr. Marsh was shocked,
incredulous and mortified.
Neither petitioner’s nor his attorney’s letters in 1992 attribute
petitioner’s failure to pay tax or file tax returns to a belief
in “Hawaiian Sovereignty”.
At a conference in January 1993 with respondent at Honolulu
District Council’s office, neither petitioner nor his attorney
mentioned “Hawaiian Sovereignty” as an explanation for
petitioner’s noncompliance with the tax laws.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011