Tracee Creen - Page 5

                                        - 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            

               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                  
               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                   
                              (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