- 14 -
with an order of the Court. We find that these failures were due
to petitioners’ willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Further,
petitioners failed to provide the Court with any excuse or
explanation for their behavior.
We very easily could find that petitioners failed to
properly prosecute their case and grant respondent’s motion to
dismiss this action. However, we choose instead to decide the
case on the merits in the hope that this opinion will guide
petitioners’ future decisions regarding their tax obligations.
See Calcutt v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 716, 721-722 (1985); Pace v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-300; Bissell v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1991-163. Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to
properly prosecute will be denied.
2. Petitioners’ Challenges to the Federal Income Tax
The crux of petitioners’ arguments can be found in their
trial memorandum. Petitioners assert that the Federal income tax
is a voluntary system that is unconstitutional. Petitioners
arrive at this conclusion by combining case quotations taken out
of context and erroneous statements of law with misguided and
illogical beliefs.
Petitioners’ arguments are basic tax-protester rhetoric
which has long been dismissed as frivolous and without merit.
Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981), affg.
per curiam T.C. Memo. 1981-122. These arguments are nothing more
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011