- 6 -
Lastly, although you were vague about your theory
of the case during our last meeting, it is my
understanding that you are planning to argue to the Tax
Court that the money you received for your retirement
and the work you did during the years at issue, is not
taxable. Please be advised that should you advance
such frivolous arguments before the Tax Court, I will
ask the Tax Court to impose a sanction against you.
The authority for such a sanction is at I.R.C. sec.
6673, and allows the Tax Court to impose a penalty of
up to $25,000.00.
Petitioner’s response to the above letter was erroneously dated
May 22, 2001, and stated:
I am writing in response to your letter of
September 28, 2001.
It is clear from the tone of your letter that you
do not comprehend the issues of this case. Either that
or I am left with no alternative but to treat your
letter as an idle and improper threat against me and my
property. If it is such a threat, I don’t think I need
to remind you of the consequences of 26 U.S.C. sec.
7214 which provide criminal sanctions for such threats
and intimidation under color of law.
This is a case of unreported income. I have
denied receipt of that income. Under the current state
of the law you have the burden of proving receipt of
that income and that the income was from a taxable
source. United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 441-442
(1976); Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th
Cir., 1991); Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d
358, 360 (9th Cir., 1979); Gerardo v. C.I.R., 552 F.2d
549, 552 (3rd Cir., 1977).
Given the tone of your letter, I cannot sign the
Stipulation of Facts as proposed. I am going to have
to go over them thoroughly and amend them. In the
interim, you must do the following. Produce all
documents you intend to use at trial to prove that I
received the income alleged in the Notices of
Deficiency and identify all witnesses you intend to
call to introduce and authenticate those documents.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011