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 . . .")
STATE OF WISCONSIN
TAX APPEALS COMMISSION
ROBERT J. AND RUTH I. QUINNELL
5959 SCHUDY ROAD
WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI 54495
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
P.O. BOX 8907
MADISON, WI 53708
DOCKET NO. 00-I-57
RULING AND ORDER
THOMAS M. BOYKOFF, COMMISSIONER
 This matter is before this Commission on the motion
for summary judgment under Wis. Stat. section 802.08 by respondent
Wisconsin Department of Revenue ("Department").
Both parties have submitted affidavits and legal arguments 1 in
support of their positions on the motion. The petitioners
appear pro se, and Attorney Robert G. Pultz represented the
Department. Having considered the entire record, the Commission
hereby finds, rules, and orders as follows:
 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Petitioners were Wisconsin residents and filed Wisconsin
resident income tax returns for the calendar years 1993 through
1997 ("period under review").
2. On each tax return filed during the period under review,
petitioners did not list as income $10,207 of pension income
received by Mr. Quinnell from a Wisconsin corporation.
3. Under date of January 27, 2000, the Department issued
an assessment to petitioners covering tax years 1993 and
1994, and under date of May 31, 1999, the Department issued
an assessment covering tax years 1995, 1996, and 1997. The
assessments add Mr. Quinnell's $10,207 of pension income
to petitioners' income for each year.
4. Petitioners filed a timely petition for redetermination
with the Department for each assessment, which the Department
5. Petitioners then timely filed a timely petition for review
with this commission.
 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
summary judgment under Wis. Stat. section 802.08 is, therefore,
2. The Department correctly added to petitioners' income
for each year under review $10,207 of pension income received
by Mr. Quinnell, as petitioners were Wisconsin residents
when the income was received.
3. Petitioners' assertions that the pension income is not
taxable are frivolous and groundless, thereby subjecting
them to an additional assessment under Wis. Stat. section
 The standard for determining whether summary judgment
is appropriate was stated in Johnson v. Blackburn, 220 Wis.
2d 260, 270 (Ct. App. 1998) as follows (without citations):
Summary judgment is appropriate in cases where there is
no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party has
established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.If
a dispute of any material fact exists, or if the material
presented on the motion is subject to conflicting factual
interpretations or inferences, summary judgment must be denied.
. . .
 Petitioners argue that there is no statutory authority to impose the Wisconsin
income tax on Mr. Quinnell's pension income. This ignores Sec. 61(a)(11) of
the federal Internal Revenue Code, which provides in part:
Sec. 61 (a) GENERAL DEFINITIONS.-Except as otherwise provided
in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever
source derived, including (but not limited to) the following
(11) Pensions. . . .
This provision is adopted for purposes of Wisconsin's income tax by Wis. Stat.
section 71.01(13), which defines "Wisconsin adjusted gross income" as "federal
adjusted gross income" with modifications not pertinent here.
 Petitioners argue that the pension income is not subject
to Wisconsin's income tax because it is not attributable
to property located within this state or from business transacted
within this state. 2 However, Wis. Stat. section
71.02(1) imposes the Wisconsin income tax on all income of
Wisconsin residents, regardless of the income's source. In
addition, Wis. Stat. section 71.04(1)(a) states, in part: "All
income of resident individuals shall follow the
residence of the individual. . . ." Therefore, Mr. Quinnell's
pension income is subject to Wisconsin's income tax because
he was a Wisconsin resident when he received it.
 Numerous decisions of the Commission and its predecessor,
the Wisconsin Board of Tax Appeals, have held that unless
there is a specific statutory exemption, pension income from
whatever source is subject to Wisconsin income tax. These
decisions include Paker v. Dep't of Revenue, 1999 Wisc. Tax
LEXIS 33 (WTAC 1999) (pension income from private corporation
earned before becoming a Wisconsin resident is subject to
Wisconsin income tax); Kuss v. Dep't of Revenue, 2000 Wisc.
Tax LEXIS 23 (WTAC 2000) (pension paid to Wisconsin resident
from the State of Minnesota Teachers Retirement System is
subject to Wisconsin income tax); Van Aman v. Dept of Revenue,
1996 Wisc. Tax LEXIS 11 (WTAC 1996) (payments from an Illinois
public employee pension system based on taxpayers' employment
in Illinois prior to becoming Wisconsin residents were subject
to Wisconsin income tax); and Waterbury v. Dep't of Taxation,
Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) paragraph 200-265 (WBTA 1965) (pension
payments from a private corporation earned through employment
in Puerto Rico prior to the taxpayer becoming a Wisconsin
resident were subject to Wisconsin income tax). Petitioners
have pointed to no specific legal or factual basis to justify
their assertion that the pension income at issue is not subject
to Wisconsin income tax.
 Petitioners further assert that the pension income is
available to them as federal reserve notes which are included
in the definition of "obligation or other security of
the United States" under 18 U.S.C. section 8. Therefore,
they argue, obligations of the U.S. government are exempt
from state taxation under 31 U.S.C. section 3124(a). From
this logic, they conclude that the pension income is not
taxable by Wisconsin's income tax.
 The above assertion amounts to a claim that when income
is available in the form of U.S. currency, this state may
not tax it. We reject that "logic." Similar attempts
to explain away the Wisconsin income tax or to explain that
the tax does not apply have consistently been given no credence
by this commission or the courts. See, Boon v. Dep't of Revenue,
1999 Wisc. Tax LEXIS 7 (WTAC 1999), aff'd on other grounds
(Milwaukee County Cir. Ct. Aug. 23, 1999); Norskog v. Dept
of Revenue, 1999 Wisc. Tax LEXIS 19 (WTAC 1999); and Tracy
v. Dep't of Revenue, 133 Wis. 2d 151 (Ct. App. 1986). Petitioners'
assertion is likewise rejected.
 Petitioners' written submissions do nothing to disprove
the accuracy of the Department's assessments. Instead, petitioners
offer frivolous arguments that have no chance of prevailing.
 We conclude that petitioners' position in these proceedings
is frivolous and groundless, and that an additional assessment
of $500 under Wis. Stat. section 73.01(4)(am) is appropriate.
1. The Department's motion for summary judgment is granted,
and its actions on petitioners' petitions for redetermination
2. Petitioners are assessed an additional $500 pursuant
to Wis. Stat. section 73.01(4)(am).
 Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 20th day of February,
WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION
Mark E. Musolf, Chairperson
Don M. Millis, Commissioner
Thomas M. Boykoff, Commissioner
ATTACHMENT: "NOTICE OF APPEAL INFORMATION"
1 Petitioners' argument is contained in their
May 11, 2000 "SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY to ANSWER with AFFIDAVIT
supporting APPEAL from Determination of Petition for Redetermination
Dated July 22, 1999 in response to income tax assessment
Dated May 31, 1999."
2 Even if these claims had a basis in law, petitioners
have offered only legal conclusions, not evidentiary facts,
to support these claims. Affidavits containing "allegations
of ultimate facts, conclusions of law or anything other than
evidentiary facts do not meet the statutory requirement that
affidavits in [opposition to] summary judgment must be made
on personal knowledge." Krieg v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.,
104 Wis. 2d 455, 465 (1981) (brackets in original).
END OF FOOTNOTES
Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit