- 4 -
asking for extensive (and, in many cases, irrelevant)
documentation relating to their 1997 and 1998 tax years.
On February 20, 2005, petitioners mailed another letter to
the settlement officer. In that letter, petitioners again
advanced frivolous and groundless arguments. Petitioners argued,
inter alia, that they are not required to file a tax return
without having been personally served with notice of such
requirement by the Secretary of the Treasury, that “there is no
statute that makes [us] liable for income tax”, that the income
tax applies only to Federal Government employees, and that
respondent lacks authority to assess or collect income taxes.
On March 11, 2005, the settlement officer mailed a letter to
petitioners. He noted that petitioners had not called him for
the March 10, 2005, hearing and that petitioners, at that point,
still had failed to raise an issue that could be considered by
the Appeals Office. The letter advised petitioners to contact
the settlement officer by March 28, 2005, if they wished to
submit additional materials for his consideration or to
reschedule the phone conference. The letter informed petitioners
that if the Appeals Office did not receive any further
information from petitioners, their case would be reviewed based
on the information in petitioners’ file.
Petitioners replied in a letter dated March 19, 2005. In
this letter, petitioners made several demands. They demanded
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011