1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 240 | Tax Ct. | 1978
1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 240">*240 Respondent's Motion To Dismiss Based Upon Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, granted. Petition failed to allege any errors in respondent's determination of petitioners' tax liability or any facts concerning their taxable income, but instead recited various baseless constitutional arguments which have been decided adversely by this and other courts many times. When the case was called for hearing on respondent's motion to dismiss petitioners refused to discuss the propriety of respondent's motion to dismiss or facts relative to their taxable income.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DRENNEN,
Petitioner | ||||
James T. Crowder | ||||
Additions to tax, I.R.C. 1954 | ||||
Year | Deficiency | sec. 6651(a) | sec. 6653(a) | sec. 6654 |
1973 | $ 7,217.66 | $ 1,804.42 | $ 360.88 | $ 230.42 |
1974 | 3,037.11 | 759.28 | 151.86 | 96.96 |
[SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL]
Petitioners were husband and wife residing in Dallas, Tex., at the time the petition was filed. James T. Crowder filed what purported to be Federal income tax returns for the years 1973 and 1974 with the Dallas office of the Internal Revenue Service.
This is another of the several so-called "tax-protestor" cases that were called from the Dallas trial calendar of this Court on June 5, 1978, either for trial or on various motions to dismiss. This case was heard on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
In their petition petitioners alleged that the income tax returns they filed for the years 1973 and 1974, on which they entered no figures on the ground that to do so would violate their rights under the
Since the jurisdiction of this Court is to redetermine the correct amount of the tax liability of the taxpayers who file petitions herein, and petitioners have alleged no errors in respondent's determination thereof, and have refused to offer any evidence of their correct tax liability for the years involved, petitioners have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and respondent's motion to dismiss has been granted.
With reference to the specific allegations made in the petition, the income tax returns filed by petitioners for 1973 and 1974 were not valid returns since they did not contain sufficient data from which their tax liability for the year could be determined.
With reference to the "Notice of Particular Averment, etc." filed by petitioners at the hearing on June 5, 1978, see the Memorandum Opinion filed in
On June 19, 1978, the Court received a document signed by petitioners dated June 15, 1978, entitled "Judicial Notice Demand At Supreme Federal Common Law For A Finding of Fact And Conclusion Of Law" in which petitioners demand a finding of fact and conclusion of law as to why the presiding Judge of this Court "would state under oath that this Chancery Proceeding was a Court of Law" which statement "was a totally stunning, chilling, devastating falsehood." Aside from the fact that the document was received after the case was dismissed and the "demand" contained therein is improper and totally irrelevant a perusal of the transcript of the proceedings in this case fails to reveal that any such statement was made by the Court in the hearing on this case.
1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 240">*245 In light of the actions of the five or six "tax-protestor" petitioners whose cases were called from the Dallas trial calendar on June 5, 1978, the Court would be remiss not to voice its disapproval of the tactics being used by this group for the reasons stated in the opinion in
When frivolous cases such as this are brought to court, there is a question whether damages should be imposed under section 6673, which provides:
* * *
* * * if tax protestors continue to bring such frivolous cases, serious consideration should be given to imposing such damages. * * *