In Uncategorized on 11/10/2016 at 15:01

Blogging Tax Court is so much fun. I sometimes pity those law review writers and trade-press types, with their festoons of footnotes and “somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent,” plowing agonizingly through the dustbowl of appellate jurisprudence.

I’m more of a freelance vagabond, driftin’ along with the tumblin’ cliché.

Here’s the kind of thing that wrings a guffaw from my gnarled visage, Louis J. Baumgartner & Beth A. Baumgartner, Docket No. 23018-16, filed 11/10/16.

Lou (“Too Bad About the Spelling”) & Beth sent in what Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel denominates as an imperfect petition. So she tells them to send in an amendment and the sixty bucks, please.

Lou (“TBATS”) & Beth denounce the crafty invitation to join the Tax Court promenade.

“Recently, you sent a request for me to submit to your jurisdiction by: (1) filing an Amended Petition and (2) sending a filing fee on or before December 15, 2016. It would be an Order if I were subject to the limited jurisdiction the USTC and IRS are only authorized to operate within. Your request had a sub silentio design in its intent to draw me into your territorial jurisdiction for the express purpose to allow the USTC and by extension, the IRS, to impose the federal income tax that has been levied only upon the National Government per The Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment, written by former POTUS William H. Taft on June 16, 1909. Therefore, the federal income tax is only applicable within the jurisdiction of the statutory ‘United States’ meaning the District of Columbia.

“I exist ‘outside the statutory United States’ as an American National [nonresident alien non US person] with no taxation nexus to the jurisdiction of the US Tax Court, the statutory ‘United States’ [26 USC§7408(d)].” Order, at p. 1. (Some emphasis in original omitted).

Oh, Ch J Iron Fist, you crafty devil you!

Nothing daunted, Ch J Iron Fist: “…it appearing that petitioners do not intend to file an amended petition and pay the filing fee as directed in the Court’s Order,” the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Lou (TBATS”) & Beth, take a look at Section 6673, before you have your next bright idea.


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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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: