- 6 -
6) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income
according to the Supreme Court’s definition of
income (See Note #1) * * * since I had no earnings
in 1996, that would have been taxable as “income”
under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, I
can only swear to having “zero” income in 1996.
Obviously, since I know the legal definition of
“income”, if I were to swear to having received
any other amount of “income,” I would be
committing perjury under both 18 U.S.C. 1621 and
U.S.C. 7206. Therefore, not wishing to commit
perjury under either statute, I can only swear to
have “zero” income for 1996.
7) I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1996
tax return and claim for refund can not be
considered “frivolous” on any basis - pursuant to
Code Section 6702. For one thing, there is no
statute that requires me to make a “self-
assessment.” Therefore, how can I be charged with
a penalty for not doing something - allegedly
incorrectly - that no statute requires me do at
all? * * *
* * * * * * *
11) Should the Service disagree with the figures and
amounts shown on my tax return and claim for
refund, then I demand an office or field audit to
discuss these differences * * *. In addition, if
any “determination” is made that changes in my
return are warranted, I demand to be notified as
to where and when I may “inspect” the “text of any
written determination and any background file
documents relating to such a determination” as
provided by 26 USC 6110.
* * * * * * *
*Note #1: The word “income is not defined in the
Internal Revenue Code. U.S. v. Ballard, 535
F.2d 400, 404. But, as stated above, it can
only be a derivative of corporate activity.
The Supreme Court has held this numerous
times. * * * [Reproduced literally.]
Respondent did not process and file petitioners’ 1996 Form
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011