- 2 -
Petitioner resided in Hudson, New York, at the time he filed
the petition in this case.
Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency
(notice) for his taxable year 2003. In that notice, respondent
determined a deficiency of $2,550 in, and an accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a)1 of $510 on, petitioner's Federal
income tax (tax) for that year.
The petition that petitioner filed commencing the instant
proceeding stated the following as grounds for his disagreement
with the notice that respondent issued for his taxable year 2003:
Schulz vs. IRS (No. 04-0196-CV) clearly demonstrates
that lacking a federal court order, I have no obliga-
tion to surrender documents or comply with any IRS
correspondence and can not be held in contempt, ar-
rested, detained, or otherwise punished
I am currently a plaintiff USDC case# 04CV01211 We The
People v U.S. Government (currently under US court of
appeals in D.C. case 055395) and consider This defi-
ciency notice harassment. Lastly the 1040 form in
question does not display a valid control # assigned by
the Office of Management & Budget in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) making it a bootleg
form and illegal [Reproduced literally.]
On February 6, 2007, the Court issued an Order (Court’s
February 6, 2007 Order) directing petitioner to file a response
to respondent’s motion. In that Order, the Court also found that
the petition contained statements, contentions, and arguments
that are frivolous and groundless.
1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007