- 10 -
lous arguments in this proceeding, our office will
request the Tax Court to impose damages against you
under section 6673.
On March 11, 2005, respondent sent a letter to petitioner
(respondent’s March 11, 2005 letter), which stated in pertinent
part:
Enclosed is a copy of a recent opinion, Kilgore v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-24 (filed February 15,
2005). In Kilgore, the Tax Court granted respondent’s
motion for summary judgment, and in doing so, rejected
as frivolous many of the same arguments you have made
in your case. The Tax Court also granted respondent’s
motion for damages under section 6673, and ordered the
petitioner in Kilgore to pay the United States a pen-
alty of $10,000.
In response to respondent’s March 11, 2005 letter, on a date
not disclosed by the record in March 2005, petitioner sent to
respondent another affidavit entitled “PETITION Private Redress
of Grievance in the Absence of Judicial Process In the form of An
Affidavit With Imperative Need for Response” (petitioner’s March
2005 affidavit), which stated in pertinent part:
This is in response to your notice dated March
11th, 2005. I have found talking with you to be very
difficult. Affiant seeks a bill which Mr. Young and
the Corporate United States, state Affiant owes.
Send me a certified bill that the federal govern-
ment says I owe which is verified per Black’s Law
Dictionary and that you have personal knowledge con-
cerning this debt.
Affiant is sending this petition to avoid Judicial
Process and objects to Motion for Summary Judgment.
Do you not realize the hardship and duress you and
your organization place on people. The tremendous debt
already established and placed on Affiant through
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011