-15-
return is based on a frivolous position or reflects a desire to
delay or impede the administration of Federal income tax laws.
The frivolous return penalty has been imposed upon taxpayers
who have taken one or more of a variety of positions. For
example, the frivolous return penalty has been imposed on
taxpayers who argue: (1) No provision of the Internal Revenue
Code makes a person liable for tax, e.g., Yuen v. United States,
supra at 1224; (2) wages are not income, or provide inaccurate or
no financial information, e.g., id.; Tornichio v. United States,
263 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Ohio 2002); (3) general constitutional
objections or refuse to pay tax on general constitutional
grounds, e.g., Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir.
1989); Leogrande v. United States, 811 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1987);
(4) the return violates the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination, Kloes v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 270
(W.D. Wis. 1984); and (5) moral or religious objections to the
payment of taxes which go toward military spending, e.g., McKee
v. United States, 781 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1986); Franklet v.
United States, 578 F. Supp. 1552 (N.D. Cal. 1984), affd. 761 F.2d
529 (9th Cir. 1985).
Petitioners’ Form 1040 does not provide a reason that the
garnishments are illegal other than petitioners’ statement that
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008