DocketNumber: Docket No. 16649-81.
Citation Numbers: 42 T.C.M. 1466, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 143, 1981 T.C. Memo. 609
Filed Date: 10/19/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAWSON,
*144 OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
CANTREL,
Respondent, in his notice of deficiency issued to pertitioner on April 6, 1981, determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable calendar year 1977 in the amount of $ 3,740.61. The deficiency determination is based upon respondent's disallowance of claimed deductions for alimony and taxes.
Petitioner resided at 64135 Omo Road, Richmond, Michigan, on the date he filed his petition. He filed an individual U.S. Federal income tax return for 1977 with the Internal Revenue Service.
Rule 34(b) provides in pertinent part that the petition in a deficiency action shall contain "clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or liability"
(1) That he is entitled to a jury trial in this Court; and
(2) That the Internal Revenue Code "purports" to impose a direct tax on the income of individuals and, thus, it is unconstitutional.
It is clear beyond doubt that petitioner's arguments are frivolous. Despite his protestations to the contrary, he is not entitled to a jury trial in the U.S. Tax Court.
Next, the constitutionality of the Federal income tax laws passed since the enactment of the
Finally, the following recent forewarning in
It may be appropriate to note further that*147 this Court has been flooded with a large number of so-called tax protester cases in which thoroughly meritless issues have been rasied in, at best, misguided reliance upon lofty principles. Such cases tend to disrupt the orderly conduct of serious litigation in this Court, and the issues raised therein are of the type that have been consistently decided against such protesters and their contentions often characterized as frivolous. The time has arrived when the Court should deal summarily and decisively with such cases without engaging in scholarly discussion of the issues or attempting to soothe the feelings of the petitioners by referring to the supposed "sincerity" of their wildly espoused positions. 4
The document filed as a petition is not in conformance with this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure and does not state a claim upon which we can grant any relief. The absence in the petition for specific justiciable allegations of error and of supporting facts permits*148 this Court to grant respondent's motion. Rule 123(b); cf.,
On this record, we must and do sustain respondent's deficiency determination, and his motion will be granted.
1. Since this is pretrial motion and there is no genuine issue of material fact, the Court has concluded that the post-trial procedures of
2. All rule references herein are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
3. See also
4. See also, on this point,