James W Harris - TP Does Self Disservice in Relying on Schiff
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:31 pm
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/Opin ... x?ID=10942
Best part of opinion:
Petitioner failed to properly contest the underlying tax liabilities. Petitioner argues that he has no Federal income tax liability because he is not a taxpayer. He posits that “[o]nly ‘federal persons’ and ‘U.S. citizens’ (meaning residents of D.C.) or those domiciled in D.C. are liable for the income tax.” Moreover, petitioner states: “I CANNOT sign Form 1040 without committing a felony because: I am not a federal ‘U.S. citizen’ domiciled in the District of Columbia; I will NOT commit a felony (perjury impersonating a federal person) by declaring that I am a U.S. citizen when I’m not.” Petitioner’s arguments are traditional tax-protester arguments; we decline petitioner’s invitation to accompany him on his voyage beyond the boundaries of legitimate tax administration. As has been said on numerous occasions by numerous courts: “We perceive no need to refute these [*10] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 936 (9th Cir. 1985); May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 1305-1306 (8th Cir. 1985); Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1984-223; Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011); Laue v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-105. Petitioner does himself a disservice by accepting the promulgations of Irwin Schiff, who was convicted and incarcerated for conspiracy, aiding in the filing of false income tax returns, and failing to pay income tax. United States v. Schiff, 544 F. App’x 729 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35 (thoroughly documenting the fallacies of Mr. Schiff’s views).
Best part of opinion:
Petitioner failed to properly contest the underlying tax liabilities. Petitioner argues that he has no Federal income tax liability because he is not a taxpayer. He posits that “[o]nly ‘federal persons’ and ‘U.S. citizens’ (meaning residents of D.C.) or those domiciled in D.C. are liable for the income tax.” Moreover, petitioner states: “I CANNOT sign Form 1040 without committing a felony because: I am not a federal ‘U.S. citizen’ domiciled in the District of Columbia; I will NOT commit a felony (perjury impersonating a federal person) by declaring that I am a U.S. citizen when I’m not.” Petitioner’s arguments are traditional tax-protester arguments; we decline petitioner’s invitation to accompany him on his voyage beyond the boundaries of legitimate tax administration. As has been said on numerous occasions by numerous courts: “We perceive no need to refute these [*10] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 936 (9th Cir. 1985); May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 1305-1306 (8th Cir. 1985); Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1984-223; Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011); Laue v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-105. Petitioner does himself a disservice by accepting the promulgations of Irwin Schiff, who was convicted and incarcerated for conspiracy, aiding in the filing of false income tax returns, and failing to pay income tax. United States v. Schiff, 544 F. App’x 729 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35 (thoroughly documenting the fallacies of Mr. Schiff’s views).
