Walter J. & Virginia L. Ward, et al. - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and (4) amended returns from the            
          Wards for 1996 and 1997.  In the letters to the IRS, the Wards              
          claimed that they did not have any remuneration paid to them that           
          was includable in gross income for 1996 and 1997--thus they did             
          not have any gross income for 1996 and 1997--and they made                  
          various tax protester type arguments to support their claim.  In            
          the amended returns, the Wards listed the “correct amount” of               
          their adjusted gross income, taxable income, and tax as zero.               
               On May 1, 2001, the Court received a motion to dismiss for             
          mootness from the Wards.  The Wards claimed that “due to a                  
          misunderstanding and misapplication of the law, the 1040 returns            
          that were filed were inaccurate and in error,” “the source of               
          [the Wards’] income is exempted, excluded, or eliminated from               
          gross income by law,” and that they had filed amended returns               
          correcting the error.  On May 2, 2001, the Court denied this                
          motion.                                                                     
               On May 7, 2001, the Court received a motion to dismiss for             
          mootness from each of the trusts.  The trusts made similar claims           
          as the Wards; i.e., that the Forms 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return             
          for Estates and Trusts, were filed in error and the trusts’                 
          income was exempted, excluded, or eliminated from gross income.             
          On May 9, 2001, the Court denied these motions.                             
               On June 4, 2001, petitioners filed a motion for continuance            








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

Last modified: May 25, 2011