Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,556 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,339,773
Pageviews Today: 1,696,183Threads Today: 217Posts Today: 4,895
11:54 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Supreme Court to hear income tax case?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20581494
Canada
10/21/2012 06:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
This guy will get the same treatment from the high court. This will be thrown out and buried. The IRS seems to trump all down there.
Isis One

User ID: 14343270
United States
10/21/2012 06:11 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
He has no chance,his argument has been ruled against time and time again...



And so the federal courts have uniformly and repeatedly rejected the claim that compensation for labor is an exchange that does not result in income.

“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”

Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 for making a frivolous appeal).

“Appellant’s contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchanges of property rather than taxable income is clearly without merit. This court specifically rejected this argument in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir. 1982), as did the Tax Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-22 (1983).... Merely raising the argument that value received for labor does not constitute taxable income, but rather constitutes a nontaxable exchange of property, justifies the imposition of sanctions.”

Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986).

“According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. ... Appellant’s argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), the Court did define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that ‘the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital’ are commonly treated as income.”

United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).

“Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ ... illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous....”

Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).

“DeMoss contends that the compensation he received from his employers is not taxable because his basis in his labor is equal to the amount of compensation he received. The tax court properly rejected this frivolous contention. See Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).”

DeMoss v. Commissioner, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2672, 75 A.F.T.R.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished; sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

“Appellant’s second argument is that his compensation in exchange for labor is property, not income. ... Again, he is wrong. The Third Circuit unequivocally has stated that ‘wages are income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.’ United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 944 (3rd Cir. 1990). The Third Circuit then warned that ‘nless subsequent Supreme Court decisions throw any doubt on this conclusion, we will view arguments to the contrary as frivolous, which may subuect the party asserting them to appropriate sanctions.’ Id. Such authority is neither cited nor found, and appellant’s arguments will be dismissed as frivolous. Wages are income.”

Angstadt v. Internal Revenue Service, 84 AFTR2d ¸99-5455, 1999 WL 820866, at 2 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 1999).

“[Peth] states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. No court has ever accepted this argument for the purpose of determining taxable income. Indeed, it has always been rejected. For once and for all, wages are taxable income.”

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280 (complaints dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing frivolous actions “brought in bad faith”).

“Even if wages are, in effect, an exchange of equal value for value, they are nevertheless taxable income. Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1121-1122 (1983); Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-129. And even if we apply section 1001 to determine petitioner’s gain, his basis is defined under sections 1011 and 1012 as his cost, not fair market value. Since he paid nothing for his labor, his cost and thus his basis are zero. Rice v. Commissioner, supra. Consequently, even under section 1001, his taxable income from his labor is his total gain reduced by nothing, i.e., his wages. ... Petitioner’s argument fails for the same reason that other protesters’ arguments fail; the worker’s cost for his services--and thus his basis--is zero, not their fair market value.”

Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, aff’d 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996).

“Petitioner submitted to the Internal Revenue Service documents purporting to be 1995 and 1996 Federal income tax returns. The documents reported petitioner’s compensation earned in each year and then deducted the equivalent amount as ‘Property (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax).” ... The only dispute that petitioner raised with respect to the amounts of compensation is his frivolous arguments that his wages are not taxable. These arguments, as petitioner was advised in the District Court order, citing United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986), have been consistently and thoroughly rejected and may be the basis for sanctions.”

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-102, 2002 TNT 74-14, (sanctions of $10,000 imposed for frivolous arguments raised primarily for delay); aff’d 2003 TNT 108-7, No. 02-73119 (9th Cir. 5/16/2003).

“In effect, Ms. Sumter attempts to claim that the deduction (her total salary) was a necessary expense for the production of that same salary. She provides no support or credible justification for her untenable position. Ms. Sumter tries to cite case law in support of her “even exchange” argument; however, none of the cases she cites justify her position. In fact, the cases are contrary to her .position. [Discussion of cases omitted] Thus, courts have clearly rejected the “even exchange” argument, which erroneously asserts that no taxes are owed on employment wages, since the income from the services rendered was a fair market value and, therefore, no profit or gain occurred as a result of the work performed.”

Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 518 (2004).

“[A] review of the pleadings indicates that Mr. Ledford bases his entitlement to this relief on his view that the federal tax code does not tax compensation received for personal labor. Mr. Ledford’s view of the tax law is mistaken, as the tax code quite plainly defines income to include amounts received in compensation for services rendered. 26 U.S.C. § 61(a) (2000) (“[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items . . . .”). Indeed, every court that has considered the matter has found this argument to be wholly without merit -- so much so that merely raising it is considered sanctionable.”

Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381, 2002 TNT 153-6, No. 02-5027 (Fed. Cir. 8/6/2002).

See also, Brown v. U.S., 35 Fed. Cl. 258, 269 (1996) (explaining that Lonsdale v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981) rejected the “even exchange” argument), aff’d, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied (1997); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984).

[link to evans-legal.com]




This fellow is going to end up a whole lot poorer for his efforts.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1792152


Great answer AC, I assume you are a good lawyer.
Spread the word, change the collective conscious......
THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH OF EVERYTHING TO GO AROUND

When you are undisciplined, the universe is extremely forgiving and when you are disciplined, the universe is extremely generous. Me
Isis One

User ID: 14343270
United States
10/21/2012 06:16 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
all you have to do is made a demand for redemption in lawful money and the "all mighty" IRS is completely castrated. If you are stupid enough to endorse fed reserve credit without restriction don't expect them to educate you about being DUMB ENOUGH to pledge yourself as surety for their debt.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16069571


WINNER!!!! Restrict your endorsements "demand is made for lawful money per 12-usc 411" and it is done.

In fact, if the guy who filed this case reads this, he would be wise to stamp his court filings, his payments to the courts and above all his signatures:
"DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" in a bold color and see what it does for him.

He might also include "had I known about lawful money redemption per 12-USC 411, I would have been demanding and using it my entire life."

That might just set the court and the FEDERAL RESERVE up for a "fraud by omission" claim and damages for not only his back taxes paid, but ALL court fees and penalties he has paid as well!!!

I hope he reads this!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22471303


Has this argument been used before? If so, did it work?
Spread the word, change the collective conscious......
THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH OF EVERYTHING TO GO AROUND

When you are undisciplined, the universe is extremely forgiving and when you are disciplined, the universe is extremely generous. Me
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 06:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
all you have to do is made a demand for redemption in lawful money and the "all mighty" IRS is completely castrated. If you are stupid enough to endorse fed reserve credit without restriction don't expect them to educate you about being DUMB ENOUGH to pledge yourself as surety for their debt.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16069571


WINNER!!!! Restrict your endorsements "demand is made for lawful money per 12-usc 411" and it is done.

In fact, if the guy who filed this case reads this, he would be wise to stamp his court filings, his payments to the courts and above all his signatures:
"DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" in a bold color and see what it does for him.

He might also include "had I known about lawful money redemption per 12-USC 411, I would have been demanding and using it my entire life."

That might just set the court and the FEDERAL RESERVE up for a "fraud by omission" claim and damages for not only his back taxes paid, but ALL court fees and penalties he has paid as well!!!

I hope he reads this!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22471303


Has this argument been used before? If so, did it work?
 Quoting: Isis One


There is no "argument" to win. The IRS has no jurisdiction over anyone who demands lawful money.

The IRS simply returns any money which an employer withheld and the interest on said money.

The 1040 is filled out and informs the IRS of the demand for lawful money (on the back of every deposit or the signature card at the Bank) and the amount, and the check comes plus interest earned while the redeemed currency was being held by the IRS.

No case can or will be filed for one reason: there is NO CONTRACT between the redeemer of lawful money and the Federal Reserve, therefore, no income tax contract for the IRS to file against.

You really think that "signature" on that naked contract (the blank back of every check you "endorse" for the banks is NOT a contract endorsement??) IT IS.

What kind of man or woman with any sense would sign a blank piece of paper without knowing, exactly, what power they give to the bank by doing so?

If this guy knew this, he could simply attack the "naked contract" on the back of every check he ever endorsed at the bank, because naked contracts are unenforceable.

FRAUD BY OMISSION!!!

Or, he could demand his redemption of lawful money per 12-USC 411 and never allow them to use his endorsements openly, no contract, no case.

Only a fool of a Federal prosecutor would take such a case into a Federal court and even if foolish, he would still loose rapidly.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 06:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
Isis one, great question by the way!

Its all contract and property use, if you use the property without a restricted endorsement, you openly and completely agree with all the rules set by the owner of the property.

Because you were never informed of those rules or obligations (on the naked contract) nor your OPTION to restrict your endorsement to the use of Lawful money, they have, in fact, committed fraud by commission and omission.

Any case actually making it into a Federal court would, in fact, condemn not only the court system, but Congress and the Executive branch! Why were we not taught this in pubic schools, funded directly by Government?

Such a case would end any presumption honesty and transparency in Government, no federal prosecutor is going to go there, the IRS will simply and quietly give you your refund and hope you keep your mouth shut.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 06:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
Forgot to add, demand for lawful money has even been used by people who are already in trouble with the IRS and paying back taxes and penalties too them.

Once "DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12-USC 411" is stamped or written on those payments, even those funds are being returned and the IRS ends any more claims on the person.

"As of June 2011, the U.S. Treasury calculates that $230 million in United States notes are in circulation, and excludes this amount from the statutory debt limit of the United States. This amount excludes $25 million in United States Notes issued prior to July 1, 1929, determined pursuant to Act of June 30, 1961, 31 U.S.C. 5119, to have been destroyed or irretrievably lost."
[link to www.treasurydirect.gov] bolding, italics and underline mine.

There are United States Notes in circulation right now, they are not taxable by the FEDERAL RESERVE because they are issued under Congresses power issue and regulate the value of money in the Constitution.

You cannot tax what you do not own.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 07:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
Allow me to back my claims with actual documents from the IRS:

[link to savingtosuitorsclub.net]

There is a SHUT DOWN of the IRS with lawful money demand per 12-USC 411.

IT IS NOT PROOF AND IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!!!

DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND WHY!!!


This is still the internet and you are responsible for your own actions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19199109
United States
10/21/2012 07:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
Supremes WILL 'hear' the case, WITH earplugs in PLACE !

They ARE part of the problem, NOT the solution, as they are/were 'in bed' with the parasitic politicians/banksters since the USA BECAME a CORPORATION !

The original Constitution, NO LONGED in force ( thanks to the Congress of 1871 who sold us out to the 'money lenders/USUERY Jewish banks ) was written as " The united states of America " which the crooks simply changed to The United States of America, A CORPORATION situated in the 10 square miles of Washington, D.C. !

They also took away common law, and have instituted OVER 17,000,000 laws, rules, regulations and statutes WITH FINES/FEES every time you break one, AND they catch you. A constant drain on your income, a CONSTANT source of revenue for those that created those laws, etc.

Eagle
 Quoting: Eagle # 1 25326508


This.

Anybody who gets their hopes up over shit like this hasn't paid a damned second of attention over the past 40 years...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20022035
United States
10/21/2012 07:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
...if you are going to argue the Fed notes are not legal tender...you lose...The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...now that last part..uniform etc etc...so why does one company in Calif that makes widgets, get to pay LESS taxes than a TX firm that makes the same widgets,no copyright problems for my question please?...or how does wind/oil/solar/coal get a different tax rate OR subsidy ?...
or why can the Govt."invest" my tax dollars with NO prospectus BUT will fine/imprison a investment firm that doesn't have a proper and correct prospectus for it's "investments"?..do you realize that IF we went to a flat tax rate,personal and corporate, with NO deductions with a realistic poverty rate which below you would not pay...it would almost end corruption !!!..you could not get a tax" break" no matter who or how much you paid off !! and with a flat tax, if someone makes 10x more than you..they pay 10x the tax you do !...what's the bitch?...you make $50k,you pay $5k..guy next door makes $500k..he pays $50k...it would need to be more like 18%,but the point is the same...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 07:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
...if you are going to argue the Fed notes are not legal tender...you lose...The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...now that last part..uniform etc etc...so why does one company in Calif that makes widgets, get to pay LESS taxes than a TX firm that makes the same widgets,no copyright problems for my question please?...or how does wind/oil/solar/coal get a different tax rate OR subsidy ?...
or why can the Govt."invest" my tax dollars with NO prospectus BUT will fine/imprison a investment firm that doesn't have a proper and correct prospectus for it's "investments"?..do you realize that IF we went to a flat tax rate,personal and corporate, with NO deductions with a realistic poverty rate which below you would not pay...it would almost end corruption !!!..you could not get a tax" break" no matter who or how much you paid off !! and with a flat tax, if someone makes 10x more than you..they pay 10x the tax you do !...what's the bitch?...you make $50k,you pay $5k..guy next door makes $500k..he pays $50k...it would need to be more like 18%,but the point is the same...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20022035


Federal Reserve notes ARE legal tender, but so it the crap my dog leaves on the front lawn.

Any "thing" can be legal tender and if agreed upon by 2 parties (adults) will also be "lawful".

However, US Notes are issued AS Lawful money and legal tender.

Federal Reserve notes "shall be" redeemed in lawful money ON DEMAND.

Lawful money, issued by the US Treasury are NOT taxable as they are part of the Reserves backing obligations of the US and cannot be taken back (as TAXES) on those obligations.

Really.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 07:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
US Notes cannot be refused as legal tender for payment of debts as the creditor is bound by law to accept them.

No law compels or requires Federal reserve notes to be accepted for payments of debts.

Look it up, its old news.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17444403
United States
10/21/2012 07:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.

Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions

[link to www.wnd.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3643010


since "all judges" in the US are paid their fat salaries from the fed, and of course your taxes, there's no way anyone of them would ever rule against your ass paying taxes.

No way you'd ever get a fair and impartial trial either..imagine the judge being on the payroll of your accuser.

Only way to repel income tax is with the barrel of a gun
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 07:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.

Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions

[link to www.wnd.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3643010


since "all judges" in the US are paid their fat salaries from the fed, and of course your taxes, there's no way anyone of them would ever rule against your ass paying taxes.

No way you'd ever get a fair and impartial trial either..imagine the judge being on the payroll of your accuser.

Only way to repel income tax is with the barrel of a gun
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17444403


AHHH, another great point, what Federal Judge can have jurisdiction over anyone demanding lawful money per 12-USC 411??

Since the Judges, in fact, endorse the private federal reserve currency with their own paychecks and directly profit from it, they would not be able to hear a case brought against or from anyone "redeeming lawful money" per 12 USC 411.

The PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD!!!

Stop endorsing the FED with your pen and watch them turn their swords away from you!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 07:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
"The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived."

[link to www.irs.gov]

Presumed: A conclusion made as to the existence or nonexistence of a fact that must be drawn from other evidence that is admitted and proven to be true.

Unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded.

When I can show through my "DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" that all my monies were redeemed or demanded redeemed and by the Restricted endorsements on the backs of all checks, deposits and withdrawal contracts at my bank, I have ended the presumption that I owe the fee for endorsing the Federal Reserve.

No contact or violation of contract or personal property rights (federal reserve credit being the personal property, no law, no prosecution possible.

Check mate without even playing because I never agreed to the game.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
10/21/2012 07:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
12 USC 411 is the enumerated exemption, DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411.

I enumerate it on every single transaction!!!

It's so easy when you know how to do it!!!!
David Merrill
User ID: 28758315
United States
11/30/2012 12:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
I caught up on that a month ago. Here is the current docket report with the Tenth Circuit:



General DocketTenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-9019 Docketed: 12/14/2011Termed: 05/17/2012
Maehr v. CIR
Appeal From: Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Fee Status: fee due

Case Type Information:
1) Tax Court (agency)
2) petition for review
3) -


Originating Court Information:
District: CIR-1 : 10758-11
Date Filed: 05/09/2011
Date Rec'd COA:
12/14/2011

05/17/2012 [9968016] Enforced/Affirmed.Terminated on the merits after submissions without oral hearing. Written, signed, unpublished. Judges Murphy (authoring judge), Baldock, and Hartz. Mandate to issue. [11-9019]

05/29/2012 [9970713] Response filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr to Order and Judgment. Served on

05/29/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019] --[Edited

05/29/2012 by BV - To remove the PDF as corrected response filed.] JTM

05/29/2012 [9970727] Response filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr to Response to Order and Judgement. Served on 05/29/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019] --[Edited 05/29/2012 by BV - To remove the PDF from the docket entry and re-docket as a petition for panel rehearing.] JTM

05/29/2012 [9970909] "Response to Order and Judgment" construed as a Petition for rehearing filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr. Served on 05/24/2012. Manner of Service: US mail. [11-9019]

06/08/2012 [9973818] Order filed by Judges Murphy, Baldock and Hartz - All relief requested in Appellant's "Response to U.S. Appeals Court, 10th Circuit's 'ORDER AND JUDGMENT' NOTICE OF JURISDICTION CONFLICT, NOTICE TO RECUSE" is denied including but not limited to panel rehearing. [11-9019]

06/15/2012 [9975994] Petition for rehearing, for rehearing en banc filed by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr received, but not filed. Response sent to Appellant. --[Edited 06/18/2012 by AT to show pleading received, but not filed. ] JTM

06/15/2012 [9975999] Motion filed by Appellant Mr. Jeffrey Thomas Maehr for findings of fact and conclusions of law received, but not filed. Response sent to Appellant. Served on: 06/15/2012. Manner of service: ECF/NDA. [11-9019]--[Edited 06/15/2012 by KLP to correct the relief code and docket text.] --[Edited 06/18/2012 by AT to show pleading as received but not filed.] JTM

06/18/2012 [9976107] Mandate issued. [11-9019]

10/29/2012 [10014457] Supreme Court order giving Appellant until 11/19/12 to pay filing fee.

11/23/2012 [10021778] Supreme Court order extending time to comply with the 10/29/12 order. [11-9019]
David Merrill
User ID: 28758315
United States
11/30/2012 12:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
I recall thinking that the clerk of the Supreme Court only docketed it because the Supremes will enjoy opining on it as much as the Tenth Circuit did. Look carefully. His cause is denied being heard at all because they refused to grant him in forma pauperis (free filing fee)!

So what you have is clerks and justices enjoying a jab or two at a "patriot nutjob" with a compendium of patriot mythology. They just could not resist being childish! What is absurd is how they even try charging him the filing fee? - Like he is that stupid!

Who would pay the filing fee for a cause that has already been shot down?


FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

May 17, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY THOMAS MAEHR,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-9019

v. (Tax Court. No. 10758-11)

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
(United States Tax Court)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, BALDOCK, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

In February 2011, the Commissioner issued notices of deficiency to Appellant, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, for the tax years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Appellate Case: 11-9019 Document: 01018846811 Date Filed: 05/17/2012

The notices asserted income tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file, failure to pay the estimated tax, and failure to pay the tax. Maehr filed a petition with the United States Tax Court pursuant to Tax Court Rule 34, seeking redetermination of the alleged deficiencies. He supported the petition with, interalia, assertions the Internal Revenue Service lacked standing; the Internal Revenue Code has not been enacted into “positive law”; the Internal Revenue Service is not a lawfully created agency but is, instead, an agency of the International Monetary Fund; he is not a taxpayer because wages are not income; Form 1040 is illegitimate because it is not imprinted with an OMB control number; and the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize the imposition of federal income taxes on citizens of the individual states.

The Commissioner moved to dismiss Maehr’s petition, arguing it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failed to comply with Rule 34 because it did not contain “[c]lear and concise assignments of each and every error which [Maehr] alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or liability,” or “[c]lear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which [Maehr] bases the assignments of error.” Tax Ct.R. 34(b)(4), (5). The Tax Court ordered Maehr to respond to the Commissioner’s motion and to file an amended petition. Maehr filed an objection wherein he elected to stand on his original petition and stated it was impossible to provide specific assignments of error because “the entire assessment is in error.” He also argued the Commissioner’s actions interfered with his religious rights by forcing him to comply with unlawful and unconstitutional statutes against his will.

The Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s motion, dismissed Maehr’s petition, and found Maehr owed the deficiencies and penalties set out in the notices of deficiency. In the written order of dismissal, the court concluded Maehr’s petition failed to comply with Rule 34 because it did not contain specific challenges to the Commissioner’s calculations or allege any facts necessary to resolve any alleged errors. The court further noted Maehr had not availed himself of the opportunity to cure his deficient petition by filing an amendment. Maehr filed two motions to vacate, both of which were denied by the Tax Court.

Maehr now appeals the dismissal of his petition, raising essentially the same points presented in his petition. This court reviews de novo the Tax Court’s dismissal of Maehr’s petition for failure to state a claim, applying the same standard as the Tax Court. Fox v. Comm’r, 969 F.2d 951, 952 (10th Cir. 1992).

Although we construe Maehr’s pleadings liberally because he is proceeding pro se, we conclude the Tax Court did not err in dismissing his petition because the petition did not comply with the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). After review of Maehr’s petition, we conclude it contains no valid challenges to the notices of deficiency and fails to specifically identify errors related to the determination of his income tax deficiencies. It, instead, raises conclusory challenges to the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and power of the Commissioner to impose income taxes. See id. at 952-53 (holding frivolous assertions in a taxpayer’s petition do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 34).

The petition raises no genuine challenge to the notices of deficiency because Maehr’s arguments have been repeatedly rejected by this court. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Comm’r, 528 F.3d 773, 777 (10th Cir. 2008) (“We have held that an argument that no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals is completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.”

(quotations omitted)); Lewis v. Comm’r, 523 F.3d 1272, 1277 (10th Cir. 2008) (rejecting argument that IRS Form 1040 does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[Taxpayer’s] argument that the sixteenth amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens . . . is devoid of any arguable basis in law.”); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (rejecting arguments nearly identical to the ones advanced by Maehr as meritless and “patently frivolous”).

Because Maehr’s petition contains no assignments of errors he alleges were committed by the Commissioner in the determination of his income tax deficiencies or any facts upon which to base an assignment of error, the Tax Court properly concluded it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of his petition. Because Maehr’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis indicates he is able to pay the costs associated with pursuing this appeal, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and he is ordered to pay any remaining balance of the appellate filing fee.

All additional outstanding motions are denied.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257
(303) 844-3157


*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6685296
United States
11/30/2012 01:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3643010



AS always, dumbass linksucks bsflag



.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1507912
United States
12/04/2012 04:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Supreme Court to hear income tax case?
There's wording in the constitution that allows the government to collect taxes to support and maintain defense and infrastructure basically as they see fit...it doesn't specifically name an income tax, but it's broad enough to allow it...
 Quoting: BRIEF


It says you can't tax people income, the money they earn can't be taken, except for two years of a war.

They had other taxes for support, one was tax on goods and the one where other counties paid to sale here. there were
road taxes from land owners. There was no property tax, you didn't have to worry about that.

News