- 4 -
wife assumed custody of the other girl, whom they later adopted.
That child was born in 1992 and for several years had serious
medical problems, all of which were costly to petitioner and his
wife. Petitioner contends that these events had a severe impact
on him and his wife. The Court understands that to mean that
petitioner and his wife essentially lost focus on their lives.
At some point, petitioner heeded the advice of a lady who
encouraged people not to pay Federal income taxes, and he filed
protester income tax returns based on that advice. As an
example, for the 1997 tax year, petitioner and his wife filed a
joint Federal income tax return on which they reported their
income, expenses, and a tax liability of $6,395. Based on the
advice of the return preparer, petitioner thereafter filed three
amended returns claiming an overpayment on each amended return.
The claimed overpayment on the third return constituted the
balance of tax reported on the original return. During all this
time, petitioner continued in his regular employment. Petitioner
was also courted during this time by other professional tax
protesters who charged for their advice on how to beat the tax
system. At some point, some of petitioner’s peers in the real
estate business counseled him that professional protesters were
“crooks” who would take his money, and, ultimately, he
(petitioner) would be held liable for his taxes. Petitioner
accepted this advice and decided to thereafter file Federal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011