In Uncategorized on 08/20/2015 at 18:25

Except, Of Course, Taxes

Among other things. No, I won’t discuss Ashley Madison and others similarly situated; we should be seeing a bushelbasketful of 6015s, 215s and 71s as that unhappy tale unwinds.

But on a day without opinions or designated orders, after a lengthy CPE/CLE that brought me fresh insights into tactics and which require much somber reasoning, and a mad rush to get out an amended offering statement, I thought something on the lighter side might serve to toll the knell of parting day.

So here’s a short round from that long-suffering correcter of misspellings, mischaracterizations and the generality of Tax Court mishaps, Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton.

Dianalee Waterman, Docket No. 19708-15, filed 8/20/15,* provides today’s grist for the blogmill.

Dianalee hit the 400 Second Street, NW, gang with an imperfect petition. Ch J Iron Mike, cast again in the role of snapper-up of unconsidered trifles, told Dianalee to get it right.

Dianalee unloaded the following: “petitioner filed a document entitled ‘Request for Motion Terminating IRC Chapter 24 Withholding Per 26 USC 6013(G)(4)(A)’. That document opened with the following: “For the record, Petitioner’s REQUEST is provided as a ‘position statement’. In no manner, form, or intent does Petitioner’s REQUEST grant the United States Tax Court (USTC) jurisdiction over the Petitioner who is domiciled ‘without the geo/legislative (^) United States jurisdiction”. The document went on to emphasize, inter alia, that Clark County, Nevada, is not in the statutory ‘United States’, and that petitioner ‘is now permanently free from participation in the federal income tax scheme’.” Order, at p. 1.

Well, Dianalee, what happens in Vegas (or Clark County generally) may stay in Vegas (or Clark County generally), but I wouldn’t wager large bucks that Federal income tax stops at the county line.

Ch J Iron Mike, clearly not in the mood for somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent, cuts to the chase: “…it appearing that petitioner does not intend to file an amended petition and pay the filing fee as directed in the Court’s Order…on the Court’s own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Order, at p. 1.

*Dianalee Waterman 19708-15 8 20 15


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: