- 4 - income taxes on his income because: (1) The income tax is an “excise tax”, and he did not engage in any “excise taxable activity”, (2) the income tax is applicable only to nonresidents, and to earnings by residents from sources outside the United States, and (3) “No law requires petitioner to sign a document under penalty of perjury and no law requires him to file a 1040 tax return.” Petitioner, of course, cites no relevant authority in support of his theories.2 Petitioner also had the temerity to ask for $10,000 in sanctions against respondent because he had to respond to respondent’s deficiency notice. Long before petitioner filed his trial brief, respondent had provided petitioner with copies of this Court’s opinions in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983), and Grimes v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 235 (1984). In both cases, this Court specifically rejected (with copious citation of authorities) the arguments, advanced here by petitioner, that wages are not subject to tax as income.3 Thus, petitioner was well aware when 2Petitioner cites a single case, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), which upheld the validity of a tax on a mining company under the income tax section of the Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166, 181. Petitioner appears to cite the case for the proposition that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution does not permit Congress to impose a tax on income. Petitioner’s argument is, of course, utter nonsense. The text of the amendment could not be clearer in establishing the power of Congress to impose and collect income taxes. 3Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983), sustained the (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011