- 5 -
6) Please note, that my 1997 return also constitutes a
claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402.
7) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income
according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income
* * * .
8) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax
return and claim for refund does not constitute a
“frivolous” return pursuant to Code Section 6702.
* * * * * * *
10) In addition, don’t notify me that the IRS is
“changing” my return, since there is no statute that
allows the IRS to do that. You might prepare a return
(pursuant to Code Section 6020(b), where no return is
filed, but as in this case, a return has been filed, no
statute authorizes IRS personal [sic] to “change” that
return.
* * * * * * *
The word “income” is not defined in the Internal
Revenue Code. * * * But, as stated above, it can only
be a derivative of corporate activity. * * *
B. Respondent’s Deficiency Notice and Petitioners’ Response
On October 8, 1999, respondent issued a joint notice of
deficiency to petitioners. In the notice, respondent determined
a deficiency in the amount of $17,471 in petitioners’ Federal
income tax for 1997 and an accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a) for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations in
the amount of $3,133.40.3 The deficiency was based principally
3 Insofar as petitioners’ ultimate tax liability was
concerned, respondent gave petitioners credit for the amounts
withheld from their wages. However, we note that the
determination of a statutory deficiency does not take such
withheld amounts into account. See sec. 6211(b)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011