https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=6260446
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/07/143848U.pdf
Harold Stanley - Wages subject to tax, $8k sanctions
-
jcolvin2
- Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
- Posts: 823
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:19 am
- Location: Seattle
-
LPC
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Harold Stanley - Wages subject to tax, $8k sanctions
The gist of the Tax Court decision:
Tax Court wrote:Petitioner's core assertion at trial is that the United States Government lacks authority to tax him based on his individual right to work for a living. Petitioner's arguments are similar to those we have previously held to be without merit. Cf. Crane v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1984)("To refute petitioner's arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent might suggest that his arguments have some colorable merit."). Accordingly, we sustained respondent's deficiency determination for petitioner's 2010 and 2011 taxable years.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
jcolvin2
- Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
- Posts: 823
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:19 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Harold Stanley - Wages subject to tax, $8k sanctions
He's baaaack:
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/Opin ... x?ID=10718
This time in a CDP case. From the opinion:
Mr. Stanley was warned in his case at docket No. 5096-10L that his positions were incoherent and frivolous and that if he continued to make similar arguments he risked penalties. Notwithstanding that warning and a second rejection of his position in docket No. 5096-10L, Mr. Stanley persisted in making
similar arguments. While Mr. Stanley stated at trial that he now has abandoned
the “UCC” argument, we find that Mr. Stanley continued to make substantially the same frivolous arguments. Further, even if Mr. Stanley has abandoned the specific frivolous arguments now that his appeal has failed, he has offered no nonfrivolous arguments in support of his petition even though he persists in opposing respondent’s collection actions. Instituting or maintaining proceedings primarily for delay is a separate ground for imposing a penalty. We therefore will grant respondent’s motion and impose a penalty of $10,000 under section 6673(a)(1) on Mr. Stanley. We also warn Mr. Stanley that if he does not abandon his misguided arguments, which amount to nothing more than delay tactics, it is very likely that in future cases before the Court a greater penalty will be imposed.
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/Opin ... x?ID=10718
This time in a CDP case. From the opinion:
Mr. Stanley was warned in his case at docket No. 5096-10L that his positions were incoherent and frivolous and that if he continued to make similar arguments he risked penalties. Notwithstanding that warning and a second rejection of his position in docket No. 5096-10L, Mr. Stanley persisted in making
similar arguments. While Mr. Stanley stated at trial that he now has abandoned
the “UCC” argument, we find that Mr. Stanley continued to make substantially the same frivolous arguments. Further, even if Mr. Stanley has abandoned the specific frivolous arguments now that his appeal has failed, he has offered no nonfrivolous arguments in support of his petition even though he persists in opposing respondent’s collection actions. Instituting or maintaining proceedings primarily for delay is a separate ground for imposing a penalty. We therefore will grant respondent’s motion and impose a penalty of $10,000 under section 6673(a)(1) on Mr. Stanley. We also warn Mr. Stanley that if he does not abandon his misguided arguments, which amount to nothing more than delay tactics, it is very likely that in future cases before the Court a greater penalty will be imposed.