- 4 -
Order), the Court granted respondent’s motion to amend answer and
denied petitioner’s September 4, 2002 motion to dismiss. In that
Order, the Court indicated that petitioner’s September 4, 2002
motion to dismiss contained various statements, arguments, and
contentions that the Court found to be frivolous and/or ground-
less.4 In the Court’s September 5, 2002 Order, the Court re-
4The following excerpts from petitioner’s September 4, 2002
motion to dismiss illustrate the various frivolous and/or ground-
less statements, arguments, and contentions contained in that
motion:
1. Very few citizens and residents of the United
States, domestic corporations, trusts, partner-
ships, etc., are liable for federal income taxes
imposed by Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code
that require keeping books and records and filing
returns. Taxing and liability statutes do not
apply to income sources, articles, activities and
transactions of the American people and domestic
juristic entities other than those who receive
income from foreign sources, insular possessions
of the United States, and maritime activity regu-
lated by treaty. * * *
* * * * * * *
4. Court documents and published district and circuit
court decisions verify that the Internal Revenue
Service is agent of the [federal] United States of
America, not Government of the United States.
* * * Court records therefore verify that Internal
Revenue Service personnel are agents of a foreign
government and Internal Revenue Service claims are
made on behalf of a government foreign to the
United States.
* * * * * * *
U.S. Tax Court subject matter jurisdiction is
limited to determining the correct amount of a defi-
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011