Stanley C. Wolcott - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          the Code.”); Dodge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-236 (finding            
          that petitioner was “incorrect” insofar as he argued that                   
          respondent could not impose additions to tax pursuant to sections           
          6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) because Form 1040 does not comply with the           
          PRA); see also Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379, 384 (7th             
          Cir. 1992) (“Statutes are not subject to the PRA and, as the                
          government points out in its brief, every court that has                    
          considered the argument that the regulations and the instruction            
          books promulgated by the IRS are within the scope of the PRA has            
          rejected it.”); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th           
          Cir. 1991) (“Congress enacted the PRA to keep agencies, including           
          the IRS, from deluging the public with needless paperwork. It did           
          not do so to create a loophole in the tax code.”); United States            
          v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991) (“But even assuming           
          without deciding that the IRS failed to comply with the PRA here,           
          its failure does not prevent Hicks from being penalized.”).8                

               8  Petitioner relies heavily on the Court of Appeals for the           
          Tenth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Pond v. Commissioner, 211           
          Fed. Appx. 749 (10th Cir. 2007), affg. T.C. Memo. 2005-255, in              
          support of his argument regarding the PRA.  An appeal in this               
          case would normally lie in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth               
          Circuit, absent a stipulation to the contrary.  The Court of                
          Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Pond, never reached the merits            
          of the taxpayer’s argument because the taxpayer did not include             
          any of the Form 1040 in the record for the Court of Appeals for             
          the Tenth Circuit to review.  See id. at 752 n.2.  Moreover, the            
          Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted that “while the                
          [Form] 1040 is an information request, it might be excepted from            
          the provisions of * * * [the PRA, 44 U.S.C. sec. 3512] under the            
          statutory origin theory discussed but neither adopted nor                   
                                                              (continued...)          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007