- 5 -
Judgment, claiming that she did not have a "taxable source of
income"; therefore, she owed no Federal income taxes. Such
arguments and positions have been raised before in countless
numbers of cases and have been dismissed summarily as tax
protester arguments. Petitioner's motion was denied. At trial,
petitioner presented no evidence to dispute the income payments
to her during the years in question, nor did she present any
evidence to increase the itemized deductions conceded by
respondent. Her sole position was to have the attorney for
respondent removed from her case, and, in lieu of that,
petitioner testified: "So then why don't we just do this: Let's
make it very simple. Why don't you just rule against me and I'll
take it to appeal and I'll get rid of him somewhere along the
line there." No motions were filed by petitioner to have the
attorney recused from the case. Following the trial, the Court
ordered the parties to file memoranda. The memorandum filed by
petitioner was another motion for summary judgment on the same
grounds as the previous motion that was denied. This posttrial
motion was also denied.
Petitioner's arguments, as outlined above in her "statement"
and "declaration" in lieu of tax returns and in her two motions
for summary judgment, are tax protester arguments that have been
heard on numerous occasions by this Court, as well as other
courts, and have been consistently rejected. The Court sees no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011