- 3 -
admissions, but petitioner was not satisfied with respondent’s
answers. For example, petitioner asked respondent to “‘admit
that no statute contained in Title 26 of the U.S. Code--United
States Code, makes Petitioner liable for the tax in the instant
action with which--which made him a taxpayer.’” Respondent
responded: “‘Denies and alleges that Petitioner knows that he is
liable for federal income tax,’ based on the fact that in
previous years” petitioner filed tax returns.
During the 2001 trial, petitioner asked the Court to give
him a definition of income, and petitioner stated that he was
pursuing his case in an effort to find out what is taxable
income. The Court referred petitioner to section 61 and advised
petitioner that money and other goods received in exchange for
his personal services are taxable income.
After learning that petitioner had not filed Federal income
tax returns for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the Court admonished
petitioner that he needed to file his returns and that it was not
too late. The Court advised petitioner: “You have been duped,”
and petitioner responded: “I know.” The Court admonished
petitioner not to let this situation happen again.
At the 2001 trial, the Court rendered a bench opinion. We
sustained revised (lowered) deficiencies of $28,596 and $9,771
for 1994 and 1996, respectively. We sustained the $6,628
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011