- 4 -
total amounts plus any penalties be dropped, due to negligence of
the I.R.S.”4 Respondent filed an answer to the amended
petition.5
As indicated, respondent moves for summary judgment.
Respondent avers that “Although there have been several
initiatives in Congress to study reparations proposals for
African-Americans, there is currently no provision in the tax law
that allows African-Americans to claim black investment taxes or
any type of tax credit or refund related to slavery reparations.”
Respondent also asserts that he has taken steps to combat the
“slavery reparation scam”.
Petitioners filed an Objection to respondent’s motion.
Petitioners contend that respondent’s motion should be denied
because respondent was “negligent in informing the public
specifically African-Americans of * * * [the slavery reparations]
4 Respondent did not determine that petitioners are liable
for any addition to tax or penalty for the taxable year 1998.
5 Respondent initially filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction, asserting that the notice of deficiency was
invalid on the ground that respondent did not determine a
deficiency in tax because sec. 6201(a)(3) authorized the
immediate assessment of the $80,000 erroneously refunded to
petitioners. When petitioners failed to file an objection, the
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss. Respondent later
moved to vacate the Court’s order of dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction, asserting that the erroneous refund issued to
petitioners is subject to the normal deficiency procedures set
forth in secs. 6211-6216. The Court granted the motion to
vacate, concluding that respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioners’ Federal income tax.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011