- 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