- 10 -
to $25,000 could be imposed for proceeding with tax-protester
rhetoric. A trial was then set for October 25, 2001.
At trial, respondent requested that the Court hold the
motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute in abeyance until
after petitioners presented their case. During opening
statements, Mr. Nunn claimed that respondent has no jurisdiction
over him or his documents and that the Federal income tax is
unconstitutional. Again, the Court explained to Mr. Nunn that
not one court in the country has found the Federal income tax to
be unconstitutional; and if his argument presented were found to
be without merit, a penalty up to $25,000 could be imposed.
At trial, petitioners’ unorganized packet of documents was
received into evidence. Mr. Nunn testified to the nature of the
various Schedule C businesses but did not relate a single
receipt, report, or invoice from the documents presented to a
corresponding deduction reported on the return. Mrs. Nunn did
not appear at calendar call or at trial.
The Court asked Mr. Nunn if he was going to proceed with
petitioners’ primary argument that the Federal income tax was
unconstitutional or if he was going to organize the documents and
try to substantiate the disallowed items set forth in the notice
of deficiency. Mr. Nunn decided to stay with petitioners’
primary argument and rested the case.
On cross-examination by respondent, Mr. Nunn testified that
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