2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-21-2005 

# H attm an v . C ommi s sione r IRS P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1376

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H attm an v

. C ommi s sione r I RS " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 512. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/512NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 1376

____________________________________



### RO GE R H AT TM AN , Appe l l ant

v. CO MM I SS I ON ER

OF INT ER

NA L REV ENUE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es T ax C o u rt

( T ax C our tN o. 04- 15852) T ax C our tJ udge: H onor abl e D i ane L. K r oupa

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t22, 2005 Be f o r e : ALI TO, SM I TH A ND CO W EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed Sept ember21, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Fol l ow i ng t he dec i s i on of the U ni t ed St at es T ax C our ts us t ai ni ng t he I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce’ s ( “I R S”) det erm i nat i on of a t ax def i ci ency , appel l antR ogerH at t m an fi l ed a “ Pet i t i on forW r i t s of M andamus, Pr ohi bi t i on and Err ort o t he Tax C our t . ” Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow w e w i l l aff i r m t he Tax C our t ’ s deci s i on and denyH at t m an the2

request ed p et i t i on s. H avi ng fai l ed t o r ece i ve a U . S. I ndi vi dual I ncome T ax R etur n fr om H at t m an for t he t ax y earendi ng D ece m ber2002, t he I R S com put ed appe l l ant ’ s 2002 fede r al t axes for hi m . A l ong w i t h t he comput at i on r epor t , a N ot i ce of D efi ci encyw as s entt o H at t m an on M ay28, 2004, i nform i ng hi m of hi s t ax def i ci encyfor2002, and otherpenal t i es and addi t i ons w hi ch had be en i m pos ed underSect i ons 6651( a) ( 1) - ( 2) and 6654( a) of the I nt ernal R evenue C ode. H at t m an t i m el ypet i t i oned fora r edet erm i nat i on of the amountof tax o w ed . R athe r th an p eti ti o n ing fo r a red u cti o n , h o w ev er, H att m an ask ed the T ax C o u rt t o or dert he N ot i ce of

D efi ci encyvoi d. H at t m an as s er t ed thathe l i ves and w or ks on pr i vat e pr oper t yt hati s i n no w ayconnec t ed w i t h t he s t at e orfede r al governm ent ; t hus , he s etfor t h t he cont ent i on t hathe i s “nots ubj ect ” t o anyl aw ort he I nt ernal R evenue C ode. T he C om m i s s i onerof the I R S r es ponded w i t h a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he pet i t i on for fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . T he C om m i s s i onerar gued thatH at t m an’ s pet i t i on s etfor t h no fac tual orj us t i ci abl e cl ai m s of err ori n t he det erm i nat i on of the def i ci encyorl i abi l i t yas re q u ire d b yT a x C o u rt R u le 3 4 (b ). T h e T a x C o u rt a f f o rd e d H a ttm a n th e o p p o rtu n ityto f ile a n a m e n d e d p e titio n , a n d o rd e re d a h e a ri n g to b e h e ld o n th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s m o tio n . U p o n c o n sid e ra tio n o f

a p p e llan t’s a m e n d e d p lea d in g , the T a x C o u rt e n ter e d a d e c isio n in favo r of the IR S on i t s m oti on t o d i sm i ss, as supplem ented, con cl ud i ng t hat there w as a defi ci encyi n i ncome t axes due fr om t axpay erfor2002 i n t he amountof $11, 014. 00, and addi t i ons t o t ax underI . R . C . §§ 6651( a) ( 1) and 6654( a) i n t he r es pect i ve amount s of3

$ 3 ,1 3 8 .9 9 a n d $ 3 6 8 .0 5 . H a ttm a n tim e lyf iled th is p ro se a p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 26 U . S. C . § 7482( a) ( 1) . W e r evi ew t he Tax C our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or , and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of i t s concl us i ons of law . P N C B an co rp v . C o m m issi o n er o f In terna l R ev en u e, 21 2 F . 3 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). In iti a lly , w e n o te th a t, de sp ite h is a ss e rtio n th a t th e T a x C o u rt issu e d “ c lea rly err oneous rul i ngs of l aw , ” s ee A pl t ’ s I nform al B r i ef a t6, ¶ 16, appel l antcont ends t hathe “i s notappea l i ng hi s di s m i s s al fr om T ax C our t , buti ns t ead i s pet i t i oni ng forw r i t s . ” See A pl t ’ s R epl yB r i ef a t2, ¶ 3. H at t m an s peci fi es thatt he w r i t s he s eeks i ncl ude: 1) a w r i tof err or t o the T ax C ou rt ; 2) a w ri tof m and am us orderi ng t he clerk to fi l e a def aultagainst the C o m m issi o n er; an d 3 ) a w ri t of m an d am u s to the C o m m issi o n er to h o n o r ap p ell an t’ s l et t erof “nonl i abi l i t y . ” H at t m an r efe r s t o hi m s el f as t he “Super i orSover ei gn, ” and bas i cal l ycont ends t hatt he I R S has no author i t yt o i m pos e a t ax upon hi m and has “def aul t ed” on thi s i s s ue. H e s um m ar i zes t hi s pos i t i on i n hi s R epl yB r i ef w i t h t he f o llo w in g sta tem e n t: Pet i t i onerhas s t at ed fa ct s t hathave ne verbeen r efut ed, namel yt hathe i s t he C r eat orof G overnm ent , t hathe l i ves and w or ks on pr i vat e pr oper t yi n no w ayconnec t ed w i t h t he Feder al G overnm ent , i s notengage d i n any pr i vel eged [ s i c] occupa t i on, i s notnot[s i c] an off i cer , empl oy ee, orel ect ed offi ci al of anygovernm ent , nota mar i ner , I ndi an, norhas a tr ade or b u sin e ss c o n n e c ted to th e U n ited S tate s, h e re a f ter U S , g o v e rn m e n t. R epl yB r i ef a t3, ¶ 9. I ti s r eadi l yappar entt hatH at t m an’ s appea l and “pe t i t i ons ” i n t hi s C our t , as w el l as4

h is p e tit io n f

o r re d e ter m in a tio n f

iled in th e T a x C o u rt, are n o th in g o th e r th a n th e th in ly vei l ed ar gum ent s of a t ax pr ot es t er . T hes e types of t ax pr ot es t erar gum ent s have be en r ej ect ed as pat ent l yfr i vol ous , and r equi r e no addi t i onal anal y s i s her e. See, e. g. , Sauer s v. C o m m iss io n e r In ter n a l R e v e n u e , 7 7 1 F .2 d 6 4 , 6 6 a n d 6 9 n .6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). M o re o v e r, to t he ext entt hatH at t m an’ s fi l i ngs i n t hi s C our tw er e i nt ended a s w r i t s of m andamus a nd e rro r, th e ya re d e n ied a s h e h a s f a iled to d e m o n stra te a c lea r a n d in d isp u tab le r ig h t to issua n ce o f su ch w ri ts. K err v . U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt , 4 2 6 U . S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (19 7 6 ); D e M a si v . W e iss , 6 6 9 F .2 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). H a ttm a n ’s M o tio n f o r a n O rd e r to Show C aus e i s l i kew i s e deni ed. Fort hes e r eas ons , and bec aus e ther e i s no m er i tt o H at t m an’ s r emai ni ng c o n ten tio n s, w e w ill a f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e T a x C o u rt.