- 13 -
inappropriate, and a waste of time, and that we would consider
any such arguments in deciding the motion to impose sanctions
under section 6673.
Following the trial, we directed the parties to prepare and
submit a supplemental stipulation of facts and to address the
application of section 1034. Although the supplemental
stipulation of facts makes no mention of section 1034, and
neither party made any arguments regarding section 1034 in their
posttrial memoranda, we address the effect of section 1034 on
petitioner’s sale of property in the opinion that follows because
section 1034 affects the computation of gain from the sale of
petitioner’s Rose Point Lane property.
On June 28, 2004, petitioner’s posttrial memorandum was
filed. In the posttrial memorandum, petitioner argued that
“respondent has refused at all times verbally or upon documents
to set forth any laws which authorizes [sic] him to take the
actions or make claims for his process of income tax assessments”
and that “it is self evident that nothing within the language of
the respondent’s Supplemental Stipulations of Facts is based upon
any United States tax law, statutes or regulations.” Petitioner
also continued to advance arguments regarding the tax treatment
of personal labor in his posttrial memorandum. On July 28, 2004,
we filed petitioner’s answering posttrial memorandum, which
contained 27 pages of tax-protester arguments similar to those
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011