- 8 -
by UC) would be lost", and "savings were liquidated for safety as
'involuntary conversion'", and so forth.
Petitioners further contend that petitioner's dismissal from
Berkeley was an illegal retaliatory act carried out by officials
at Berkeley to punish petitioner for reporting various fraudulent
acts of Berkeley officials. Petitioners also claim that
administrative officials at Berkeley, along with generous
benefactors of Berkeley, plotted to have petitioner killed for
reporting fraudulent activity. Finally, petitioners contend that
the issuance of the notice of deficiency resulted from a
conspiracy between Berkeley and the Internal Revenue Service to
harass petitioner for his whistle-blowing.
Petitioners did not assert a valid position or present any
evidence or authority to support their contention that the
$45,955 in retirement distributions from Berkeley was not
includable in gross income. The arguments they advanced are
completely lacking in factual and legal foundation and, in
essence, constitute a protest of the Federal tax laws. Similar
types of arguments have been heard on numerous occasions by this
Court, as well as other courts, and have been consistently and
vehemently rejected. The Court, here, sees no need to further
respond to such arguments with somber reasoning and copious
citations of precedent, as to do so might suggest that
petitioners' arguments possess some measure of colorable merit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011