- 3 -
“Property (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to
tax)”. By those documents, petitioner sought refunds of income,
Social Security, and Medicare taxes withheld from his wages. The
documents set forth various frivolous arguments.
On June 26, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona seeking refunds of
withheld taxes. On August 2, 1999, the District Court granted a
motion by the United States for summary judgment. In its order,
the District Court held that petitioner’s arguments were without
merit. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
District Court’s order on July 26, 2000.
In the amended petition filed in this case on May 29, 2001,
petitioner alleged that he “did not receive any income from any
taxable source as alleged in the Notices of Deficiency.”
Petitioner designated Phoenix, Arizona, as the place of trial.
By notice served August 24, 2001, this case was set for
trial in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 28, 2002. Attached to the
Notice Setting Case For Trial was a Standing Pre-Trial Order that
provided, among other things:
ORDERED that all facts shall be stipulated to the
maximum extent possible. All documentary and written
evidence shall be marked and stipulated in accordance
with Rule 91(b), unless the evidence is to be used to
impeach the credibility of a witness. Objections may
be preserved in the stipulation. If a complete
stipulation of facts is not ready for submission at
trial, and if the Court determines that this is the
result of either party’s failure to fully cooperate in
the preparation thereof, the Court may order sanctions
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011