- 7 -
the matter. The following facts were submitted to the
IRS in April of 1999:
1. “It does not appear that the United States
and the State of California (each a body
politic with their respective governments)
are under any legal obligation to protect our
property and ourselves;
2. That although I may have accepted some
commercial benefits, it does not appear that
the tax in question bears a fiscal relation
to those benefits;
3. In addition, regardless of the fact that some
commercial benefits may have been accepted,
it does not appear that any obligation to pay
any particular tax in return was ever
disclosed.”
Factually, this case is distinguished from cases such
as United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 and similar
cases because the presumption of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S.
47 has been overcome due in part to statutes such as 50
U.S.C. � 1520 as enacted in 1976.
The IRS has not disputed these facts. Therefore,
petitioner brings only an issue of law before the
court.
The legal conclusion drawn from the above facts is that
no liability could have been incurred regardless if
income was earned or not because of a lack of
consideration, see also State of Wisconsin, et al. v.
J.C. Penney Company, 311 U.S. 435, and Complete Auto
Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274.
Respondent filed answers to the amended petitions on
September 24, 1999. In each answer, respondent denied making
errors in his adjustments.
Consolidation
By motion filed November 23, 1999, respondent moved to
consolidate these cases for trial, briefing, and opinion (the
motion to consolidate). We ordered petitioners to make any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011