- 8 -
In that Order, the Court indicated that petitioner’s October 10,
2002 motion to dismiss, like petitioner’s September 4, 2002
motion to dismiss, contained various statements, arguments,
contentions, and/or questions that the Court found to be frivo-
lous and/or groundless.7 In the Court’s October 16, 2002 Order,
7Petitioner’s October 10, 2002 motion to dismiss restated
certain of the frivolous and/or groundless statements, arguments,
and contentions contained in petitioner’s September 4, 2002
motion to dismiss and set forth additional frivolous and/or
groundless statements, arguments, contentions, and/or questions.
By way of illustration, petitioner’s October 10, 2002 motion to
dismiss stated:
In order to resolve existing and/or avert future
controversy, the following must be objectively proven
in record for calendar years specified above. Please
address all questions and, where necessary, provide
documentary and whatever other evidence that supports
the findings:
1. What class or classes of tax are at issue, i.e.,
what taxing and liability statues, along with
implementing regulations, make me a person liable
for keeping books and records and filing returns?
(Sixth Amendment right to know the nature of the
action)
2. What internal revenue district, established in compli-
ance with requirements of 26 U.S.C. � 7621 and Execu-
tive Order #10289, is the situs of the taxable arti-
cles, activities and/or transactions from which the
alleged taxable income was derived?
3. What delegated authority, whether statutory or other-
wise, does IRS have for administering the class or
classes of tax at issue? (See 5 U.S.C. � 558(b))
4. What “officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury
Department [or] other officer of the United States” is
the delegate of the Secretary for purposes of collect-
ing income and employment taxes imposed by Chapters 1,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011