- 4 -
to society as a whole. We find these and the rest of
petitioner’s arguments to be unfounded and frivolous.
Petitioner’s legal arguments do little more than recite law or
legal principle which is irrelevant, taken completely out of
context, or otherwise misapplied. “We perceive no need to refute
these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some
colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417
(5th Cir. 1984). Furthermore, many of petitioner’s arguments
advocate amendment or repeal of the AMT. This Court is not the
proper place for these arguments. The function of this Court is
to accurately and justly apply the laws as they were written by
Congress.
Nevertheless, we briefly address one aspect of petitioner’s
arguments. Throughout the trial and in petitioner’s various
documents filed in this Court, including his brief, petitioner
focuses on his inability to conduct discovery in this case.
Petitioner misunderstands the nature of discovery. The purpose
of discovery in this Court is to ascertain facts which have a
direct bearing on the issues before the Court, not to conduct a
“fishing expedition”. Estate of Woodard v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
457, 459-460 (1975). There are no factual disputes in the case
at hand--respondent merely calculated petitioner’s AMT liability
under the relevant statutes using information which petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011