- 4 -
Petitioner stipulated that he received the income listed on
the notice of deficiency.2 Petitioner contends, inter alia, that
the earnings he received are not income, and therefore he is not
liable for taxes. Petitioner also argues that the statutory
notice of deficiency he received is invalid because it was not
signed by the Secretary of the Treasury or an agent designated by
the Secretary. Petitioner advanced these and other arguments in
filings and at the hearing. These arguments are characteristic
of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by
this and other courts. Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902
(10th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-154; Charczuk v.
Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo.
1983-433; Michael v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-26; Knelman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-268, affd. without published
opinion 33 Fed. Appx. 346 (9th Cir. 2002). We shall not
painstakingly address petitioner’s assertions “with somber
reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might
suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Crain
v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the
deficiency determined by respondent.
2 Petitioner received payments totaling $35,873 from
various sources including wages, unemployment compensation,
income from self-employment, and IRA distributions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011