Quatloos! > Tax
Scams > Tax
Protestors > EXHIBIT:
Tax Protestor Dummies 2 > Cases
("Damn, We Lost Again!
And why is it
that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")
RONALD AND DORTHEA JOLING,
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Filed April 13, 2001.
Ronald and Dorthea Joling, pro sese.
Wesley F. McNamara, for respondent.
 GERBER, JUDGE: This case is before us on petitioners'
motion for summary judgment. Respondent determined deficiencies
in and additions to petitioners' Federal income tax for the
1994, 1995, and 1996 taxable years as follows:
PETITIONER RONALD JOLING
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec.
6651(a)(1) 1 Sec. 6654
____ __________ ___________ _____________
1994 $321,469 $80,367.25 $16,681.58
1995 305,884 76,471.00 16,585.83
1996 202,367 45,532.58 10,771.06
Year Deficiency Sec.
____ __________ _____________ __________
1994 $61,332 $15,333.00 $3,182.64
1995 81,511 20,377.75 4,419.71
1996 64,530 14,519.25 3,434.63
FOOTNOTE TO TABLE
1 Respondent also determined that each petitioner
is liable, for each taxable year, for an addition to tax
under sec. 6651(a)(2) in an amount to be computed.
END OF FOOTNOTE TO TABLE
 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the periods under
 Petitioners did not file returns, contending that their
sources of income were not taxable. After respondent determined
tax deficiencies, petitioners brought forward documentation
in an attempt to show that they are entitled to deductions,
if it is decided that their income is from a source that
is taxable. Petitioners have moved for partial summary judgment
on the legal question of whether income from several sources,
including their trucking business, motel business, real estate
sale, and bank interest is the type of income that is taxable
under the Internal Revenue Code. 1
 Petitioners resided at Coquille, Oregon, at the time
their petition was filed in this case. Petitioners filed
Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for years
prior to 1992. For 1992 and subsequent years, including the
years in issue, petitioners filed Forms 1040NR, U.S. Nonresident
Alien Income Tax Return, generally reflecting that they were
not subject to income tax. For the years 1994, 1995, and
1996, petitioner Ronald Joling hauled goods by truck in return
for compensation. During the years 1994, 1995, and 1996,
petitioners owned the Myrtle Lane Motel, from which they
received income from rental proceeds. During the years 1994,
1995, and 1996, petitioners received income from payments
received for the sale of real property. For 1996, each petitioner
received income from a distribution due to the liquidation
of individual retirement accounts and/or pension plan. During
the years 1994, 1995, and 1996, petitioners received interest
income from bank account(s).
 Petitioners' legal premise is that the income tax is
actually an excise tax and that they did not engage in any "excise
taxable activities" during the years in issue. 2 Petitioners
have gone to great lengths to support their premise by citing
cases, statutes, and related legal materials. After thorough
review, we hold that petitioners' legal premise is in error
and that petitioners have misconstrued the cited legal materials.
We briefly review petitioners' arguments.
 Petitioners present their legal argument in the classic
syllogistic form; i.e., (1) "the income tax is * * *
an indirect tax, in the nature of an excise [tax]";
(2) petitioners engaged in no activity that is subject to
excise tax; (3) therefore, petitioners are not subject to
tax. Petitioners' initial premise, however, is fallacious
in treating the income tax as synonymous with, or the same
as, an excise tax. Petitioners' reasoning is specious and
circuitous in other respects. Petitioners' initial premise
derives from early Supreme Court cases where the constitutionality
of an income tax was being tested. The early cases considered
the 16th Amendment, which authorized Congress to impose a
tax on income without apportionment among the States. The
Supreme Court referred to the income tax as an indirect tax
in "the class of excises, duties, and imposts".
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 15 (1916). For
example, petitioners cite the following cases: Cook v. Tait,
286 F. 409, 412 (D. Md. 1923), affd. 265 U.S. 47 (1924);
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., supra; Stanton v. Baltic Mining
Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); White Packing Co. v. Robertson,
89 F.2d 775, 779 (4th Cir. 1937).
 From those cases, petitioners postulate that the "income
tax" is an "excise tax", and that petitioners
can show that their activities (receipts) are not subject
to the imposition of the U.S. excise tax. Petitioners have
presented several other unfounded arguments (legal and procedural)
and peppered the Court with a large volume of material in
an attempt to be persuasive. In sum and substance, petitioners
have persuaded this Court only that they are highly motivated
in their attempt to avoid being subjected to a Federal tax
on their income.
 Wherefore, petitioners' motion for summary judgment
will be denied.
 An appropriate order will be issued.
1 In their argument, petitioners reference sec.
1.6662- 4(d)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs., concerning the definition
of "substantial authority" for purposes of the
accuracy-related penalty of sec. 6662. No accuracy-related
penalty, however, is in issue here. Respondent determined
income tax deficiencies and additions for delinquency (late-filing)
and failure to pay estimated tax. In that regard, petitioners
have admitted that they did not report income and/or file
Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the years
in issue. Accordingly, we assume that petitioners' reference
to substantial authority is some form of guideline or standard
by which they personally measure their acceptance of their
legal conclusion that the income tax is, in reality, an excise
tax, a subject that is discussed infra.
2 Petitioners specifically concede that "the
federal income tax laws are valid and constitutional."
END OF FOOTNOTES
Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit