Robert Ho - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          respondent’s motion, as supplemented, and deny petitioner’s                 
               At the time that the petition was filed, and at all other              
          relevant times, petitioner resided at 3940 Eagle Rock Blvd. #120,           
          Los Angeles, California 90065 (Eagle Rock address).                         
          Petitioner’s Form 1040 for 2001                                             
               On March 6, 2003, petitioner submitted to respondent a Form            
          1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the taxable year               
          2001.  On the return, petitioner entered zeros on all lines                 
          requesting information regarding his income, specifically                   
          including line 7 (Wages, Salaries, Tips, Etc.).  Petitioner                 
          attached to the return a 2-page typewritten statement containing            
          frivolous and groundless tax protester arguments such as:2  (1)             
          No section of the Internal Revenue Code establishes an income tax           
          liability, or requires that he pay taxes on the basis of a                  
          return; (2) the Privacy Act provides that he is not required to             
          file a return; (3) a Form 1040 with zeros is a valid return; (4)            
          he has no income under the definition of income in Merchant’s               

          are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                       
               2  Petitioner attached a substantively identical 2-page                
          typewritten statement to the petition he filed in docket No.                
          5407-04S in respect to the taxable year 2000.  In that case, the            
          Court rendered a bench opinion in January 2005 holding that                 
          respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining to proceed           
          with collection by levy.                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011