Joseph T. Tornichio - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          arguments as “frivolous”, observing, among other things, that               
          section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes tax liability on             
          taxpayers and that “income” encompasses wages.4  Id.  The                   
          District Court imposed sanctions on petitioner pursuant to rule             
          11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.                                 
               Describing petitioner as “an Ohio tax protestor”, the U.S.             
          Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District                
          Court’s judgment and concluded that “assertion of Tornichio’s               
          arguments in this appeal also warrants a Fed. R. App. P. [Federal           
          Rules of Appellate Procedure] 38 award” of $1,000 in favor of the           
          United States.  Tornichio v. United States, 83 AFTR 2d 99-1531,             
          at 99-1531 to 99-1532 (6th Cir. 1999).                                      
               In a separate action in the District Court, petitioner                 
          sought refund of income taxes withheld from his wages for 1994              


               3(...continued)                                                        
          legitimacy of an Appeals Office hearing involving respondent’s              
          attempted collection of frivolous return penalties assessed                 
          against petitioner for 1996, 1997, and 1998.  The District Court            
          dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.  Tornichio v.                
          United States, 89 AFTR 2d 2002-1506, 2002-1 USTC par. 50,411                
          (N.D. Ohio 2002).                                                           
               4 The District Court explained:                                        
               Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax                        
               “liability”.  The plain language of the Code belies                    
               this, stating the tax is “imposed”.  See 26 U.S.C. � 1.                
               He attempts to distinguish between “imposing” a tax and                
               creating a “liability” for tax.  The Court fails to see                
               a difference.  Individuals have an affirmative duty to                 
               pay taxes.  * * * [Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR                 
               2d 98-1377, at 98-1379, 98-1 USTC par.  50,299, at                     
               83,681 (N.D. Ohio 1998).]                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011