Harold A. Lange - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
               Petitioner sent a document to the Internal Revenue Service             
          (IRS) in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 14, 2003.  The document               
          included a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form               
          1040) for 2002 along with Schedule A, Itemized Deductions,                  
          Schedule EIC, Earned Income Credit, a warning against removing              
          any documents, a 38-page protest, a 17-page exhibit, and copies             
          of the Forms 1099-R.                                                        
               Petitioner included the pension distributions from the                 
          National Electrical Benefit Fund and from the Electrical Workers            
          Pension Trust Fund, and reported taxable income of $47,513 on               
          Form 1040.  He also claimed $11,393 of itemized deductions, a               
          $600 child tax credit, a $600 earned income credit, and a $1,677            
          additional child tax credit.  Petitioner reported $1,345 as the             
          “amount you owe” on line 73 of Form 1040.                                   
               Petitioner signed the Form 1040 without deleting anything              
          from the jurat but wrote “under protest, without prejudice” in              
          the space for the spouse’s Social Security number and in the                
          spouse’s signature line.  Petitioner’s warning against removing             
          any documents included a note stating that the 38-page protest              
          document explained what petitioner meant by “under protest,                 
          without prejudice.”                                                         
               The 38-page protest included numerous arguments in which               
          petitioner challenged the authority of the IRS over him and his             
          obligation to pay income tax.  These arguments include that he is           
          not an “individual” subject to taxation, that only wages paid by            
          the Government are subject to taxation, that non-Government                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011