- 10 -
Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 758 (1983); see Steinbrecher v.
Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983), affg. T.C. Memo.
1983-12; McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983),
affg. 76 T.C. 1027 (1981); Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268
(9th Cir. 1982), affg. an unreported decision of this Court;
United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518, 523 (9th Cir. 1980). In
the terms of the U.S. Supreme Court, a taxpayer may not “draw a
conjurer’s circle around the whole matter” of his tax liability.
United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927). The Court
need not rule on petitioner’s claim in the context of this case,
although it may have been perceived as frivolous. See Johnson v.
Commissioner, 289 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2002), affg. 116 T.C. 111
(2001) (assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege, inconsistent with
a taxpayer’s need to satisfy his burden of proof, might lead to
sanctions).
The purpose of petitioner’s various arguments is apparently
to delay further or defeat satisfaction of his income tax
liabilities. His demand for an in camera inspection was a
dilatory tactic. He certainly did not want the trial judge to
hear his theory about how evidence might have been used against
him in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Presumably, he would
have sought a continuance so that a different judge would conduct
the trial in this case. In any event, he sought continuance of
the case and removal of the trial judge on spurious grounds. See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011