- 8 -
and caretakers of land owned by Lucky Kirt Trust, not owners of
or in control of any Lucky Kirt Trust assets or income.
Petitioners assert that the period of limitations for attacking
the validity of the Lucky Kirt Trust expired in 1994, that the
income tax is one of voluntary self-assessment and they have
correctly self-assessed and paid, that the revenue agent exceeded
her authority, and that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide
these cases.6 Therefore, petitioners conclude there are no
penalties due from petitioners for the taxable years in issue.
Respondent asserts that petitioners earned income through
the sham Lucky Kirt Trust and that the Lucky Kirt Trust should be
disregarded for tax purposes due to its lack of economic
substance. Thus, the income from Lucky Kirt Trust should be
attributed to petitioners, and as a result, petitioners also have
a capital gain in 2001 and are liable for self-employment taxes
for all the years in issue. Morever, respondent contends that
petitioners’ defenses to the deficiencies and penalties comprise
only self-serving testimony and tax protester arguments.
6 Petitioners’ arguments are frivolous. Respondent timely
issued the notices of deficiency in these cases in accordance
with the statute of limitations. Petitioners’ arguments
regarding the legitimacy of the Federal income tax system have
been universally rejected as frivolous and warrant no further
comment. See Crain v. Commissioner, supra at 1417-1418 (“We
perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning
and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that
they have some colorable merit.”). In the instant cases, the Tax
Court has exclusive jurisdiction over petitioners’ disputed
income taxes. See sec. 6214(a); Marino v. Brown, 357 F.3d 143,
145 n.5 (1st Cir. 2004).
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