- 5 -
minded petitioner about section 6673(a)(1)5 and indicated that it
would be inclined to impose a penalty on her under that section
not in excess of $25,000 in the event that she continued to make
4(...continued)
ciency and whether or not proper procedure was used for
determining the deficiency. Where venue, subject
matter jurisdiction and other collateral issues are
concerned, and where IRS personnel malfeasance and
misfeasance are concerned, district courts of the
United States, and under some circumstance, common law
courts in States of the Union, have subject matter
jurisdiction. Further, the U.S. Tax Court, which now
appears to be classified as an Article I court of the
United States, does not proceed in the course of the
common law, as required by the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, so
it is incompetent to provide remedies prescribed by the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore,
I move for the U.S. Tax Court to dismiss this matter
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Reproduced
literally.]
5Sec. 6673(a)(1) provides in pertinent part:
SEC. 6673. SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS.
(a) Tax Court Proceedings.--
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for de-
lay, etc.--Whenever it appears to the Tax Court
that--
(A) proceedings before it have been
instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
primarily for delay, [or]
(B) the taxpayer’s position in such
proceeding is frivolous or groundless, * * *
the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the tax-
payer to pay to the United States a penalty not in
excess of $25,000.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011