information needed on United states tax court

[joma44]

Hey all.

long time no post.

so I'm going to appeal a final determination for relief from liability under 6015(b). of course the IRS I denied me. They listed 6 reasons, 5 are unbelievably laughable and demonstrably false. The last reason was that I didnt show it would be unfair for me to pay the tax. LOL...the irs talking about fairness. Anywayt I've got my ducks in a row on that one pretty well and can prove how unfair it is.

I'll still get screwed but at least I'd like to go down swinging and pointing out the absurdities of the system.

I'm not seeing anything specifically about the united states tax court here.

All of my research has been on the regular court system. Is tax court that different?

if there is a subsection that I'm not seeing can you point it out to me or if there is more information elsewhere that would help me understand the system better I would appreciate.

thanks all

[Smith]

Tax court ...... administrative board of review back in the 1960's they changed their name to united states tax court.

It is in " NAME " only .

Good Luck .

You have goto start small and work your way up.

Taxes is a BIG fish .. start with minnows..traffic and work you way up the food chain.

[ThomPaine]

My understanding of USTC is that its a civil court and its decisions are only binding on you and the court for your particular case, not to the public at large and there are questions about whether they are binding at all due to the shady nature of the IRS and the 'tax court'

Anyway, I opted out of their game about this time last year and received a letter from USTC saying that all cases were being dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. I basically challenged all of their info, rebutted, etc. If they sent me a letter saying I was the petitioner in case number 1234, then I wrote back and said the definition of petitioner is this and I did not petition you for anything. Explain how/why I am a petitioner. Said that I had to pay a $60 fee to file the case in USTC. I wrote back and I said I will not pay the fee, didnt originate the case, dont want to go to court and submit to their jurisdiction, etc. USTC wrote back and said well if you dont pay the fee, we will have to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. I said fine with me...

[Shoonra]

US Tax Court is an Article I court, established in 1924. Ordinarily the taxpayer (individual or corporation) is the petitioner (the plaintiff) seeking a refund, exemption or some similar break from the IRS. By not following through on a case, the taxpayer loses his chance for a decision in his favor.

On the other hand, when the IRS is trying to pry money loose from someone who refuses to pay, that is usually in a district court, an Article III court capable of imposing not only judgments and fines, but even prison sentences.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

US Tax Court is an Article I court, established in 1924. Ordinarily the taxpayer (individual or corporation) is the petitioner (the plaintiff) seeking a refund, exemption or some similar break from the IRS. By not following through on a case, the taxpayer loses his chance for a decision in his favor.

On the other hand, when the IRS is trying to pry money loose from someone who refuses to pay, that is usually in a district court, an Article III court capable of imposing not only judgments and fines, but even prison sentences.

Nope. Not Article III. Article II at best. Read Rule 45.1 of the Supreme Court Rules and Notice the gold fringed flags - Executive.


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/donors/...upct/Rules.pdf

Also consider this: Any Article III judge cannot have his salary diminished during the term of office. How many of the USDC judges are Taxpayers?

However none can effect the entitlement to redeem Federal Reserve Bank notes - like the Ninth Circuit justices agreed in 1974.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Also consider this: Any Article III judge cannot have his salary diminished during the term of office. How many of the USDC judges are Taxpayers?

Answer: All of them. There has been some litigation -- especially in the years immediately following the establishment of the federal income tax and the establishment of Medicare -- on whether the imposition of a new tax or new tax rate, generally applicable to everyone else in the country, could not be imposed also on Article III judges under the "not be diminished" clause (Art.III, sec.1). By now the entire generation of judges who were in office before the income tax laws were enacted has passed away, so ALL judges pay taxes, the only quibbling is whether they can be made to pay new taxes or tax rates.

US Supreme Court is an Article III court, explicitly created under Article III.

I believe you misunderstand Supreme Court Rule 45(1). It deals with "all process [issued] by this [Supreme] Court". "Process" is a term of art the describes various orders issued by the Supreme Court, some of which (such as a subpoena) are very rare, some of which (such as a stay) are merely infrequent. The rule merely describes the way the document will be captioned. So far nobody has litigated this rule so there is no authority for supposing it means more than this.

I have no idea what the reference to the flag is supposed to signify.

My recollection is that this thread started on the topic of the Tax Court and you have contributed nothing to answering that question.

[Notorial dissent]

Why should it be a surprise to anyone, but David, that government processes be issued in the name of the Head of State, as is done in most every other country in the world.

That, however, does not mean that the court is under the juridiction of the President.

I find the "diminish" argument a bit spurious since it was intended that their salaries could not be reduced by the government during their tenure, as a way of preventing them from being econimically threatened by a congress that disagreed with something one of them did. If the other explanation were truly valid, then they should be living free for life as having to pay for food / rent / mortgage "diminishes" their pay as well, no less so than paying taxes on their earnings. Since the one has never been held, I cannot see that the other has any validity either.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

It is true then, that the alleged concept of a doctrine of separation of powers pursuant to "...this Constitution for the United States of America" is folkloric mythology, and/or fable?

And what of the precious independent judiciary that you are likely hopelessly enamored of?

Precisely when, where, how, did the president obtain "Head of State??!!"

And why, pray tell?

Can you/will you show me precisely where within "this Constitution for the United States of America," the term "Head of State," lies, and an enumeration of Power(s) of same?

Can you/will you show me precisely where within "this Constitution for the United States of America," the term "Head of State," and where, how, and why that Title is vested in the president?

Can you/will you show me another ordainment and establishment that is subject by Title to "We The People," ordering precisely the same form of agency of government (which government is and of itself is "this Constitution for the United States of America"), in any "country in the world," much less "most every country in the world?"

If you want a monarchy so badly why not just move to one?

Or do you aspire to help create what Alexander Hamilton so greatly desired but (ostensibly) could not gain?

Can you/will you concisely present a knowledgeably comprehensive evaluative analytically constructed application demonstrating precisely how it "does not mean that the court is under the juridiction [sic] of the President?"

How is it not that you seem to present other than a very disturbing monolithically globalist concept regarding our constitutional Republic?