TAX COURT OPINION

Case: David B. Berrian
Docket Number: 6655-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/22/2008
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 DAVID B . BERRIAN, Petitioner , CAL STAT . 11 v . ) Docket No . 6655-07L . -5-T . JUD GE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . FILE S O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to Petitioner, David A . Berrian and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Harry A . Haines at Seattle, Washington, on June 16, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Harry A. Haines Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . July 22, 2008 SERVED JUL 2 3 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Harry A . Haines June 16, 2008 2 David B . Berrian v . Commissioner Docket No . 6655-07 L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 4 findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following 5 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 6 The oral findings of fact and opinion should not be relied 7 upon as precedent in any other case . 8 Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in 9 response to a Notice of Determination concerning Collection 10 Actions Under Sections 6320 and/or 6330 for 2005 . Pursuant 11 to I .R .C . section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review o f 12 respondent's determination . The only issue for decision is 13 whether petitioner has the right to refuse to pay income tax 14 because of his belief that the actions of the United States 15 in Iraq violated international law . On the court's ow n 16 motion, we also consider the penalty under I .R .C . section 17 6673 . 18 Petitioner is an individual who maintained hi s 19 legal residence in the state of Washington at the time his 20 petition was filed in this case . 21 On August 19, 2006, respondent sent petitioner a 22 Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a 23 Hearing with respect to his 2005 income tax liability . On 24 or about September 26, 2006, petitioner made a timel y 25 request for a collection due process hearing . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Petitioner stated in his request for a collection 2 due process hearing that "payment of federal income ta x 3 would put me in a position that is both illegal and immoral . 4 The current war in Iraq violates both U .S . and international 5 law . To willingly pay taxes is to directly fund that war . 6 In funding these illegal activities I would become directly 7 complicit in those crimes and could be prosecuted . Befor e 8 paying any federal tax I need to receive in writing from the 9 U .S . government dispensation and defense from an y 10 prosecution . " 11 On December 8, 2006, the Internal Revenue Service 12 Appeals office sent petitioner a letter scheduling a 13 telephonic collection due process hearing on January 23 , 14 2007 . On January 23, 2007, the Settlement Officer assigned 15 to petitioner's case spoke to petitioner on the telephone . 16 Petitioner stated that he had sent the Settlement Officer a 17 letter . 18 The Settlement Officer told petitioner tha t 19 opposition to using tax funds for war has been considered by 20 the Courts to be a frivolous argument . The Settlemen t 21 Officer told petitioner he would not take any action with 22 respect to his case until he received the letter petitioner 23 had sent . 24 On February 2, 2007, the Settlement Office r 25 received petitioner's letter which was dated January 16, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 2007 . The letter did not raise any substantive issues . 2 The Settlement Officer reviewed the case file, and 3 on February 15, 2007, the Notice of Determination Concerning 4 Collection Actions under Section 6320 and/or 6330 was issued 5 to petitioner . 6 Pursuant to I .R .C . section 6330(c)(2)(A), a 7 taxpayer may raise at an Appeals hearing any relevant issues 8 with regard to the proposed collection activities, including 9 spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of th e 10 intended collection activities, and possible alternative 11 means of collection . Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 12 610 (2000) . 13 Here, petitioner argues that the Iraq war i s 14 illegal, and thus the funding of the war through the payment 15 of taxes is also illegal . This is a frivolous argument . 16 In Autenreith v . Cullen , 418 F .2d 586 (9th Cir . 17 1969), the U .S . Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held 18 that a taxpayer does not have standing to question th e 19 legality of conduct undertaken by the United States . Such 20 issues cannot be adjudicated as they do not contai n 21 allegations that Congress, in enacting the income tax law, 22 "breached a specific limitation upon its taxing or spending 23 - power . " 24 In Russell v . Commissioner , 60 T .C . 942 (1973), we 25 held that the taxpayer's belief that the payment of tax Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 would violate international law was not a defense to paying 2 the tax . No taxpayer or citizen has the right to have the 3 judiciary conduct an inquiry into the military and foreign 4 policies of the United States, or to review or re-examin e 5 the appropriations made by Congress for military and defense 6 purposes . 7 Ultimately, petitioner's arguments are identical to 8 those discredited in Autenreith and Russell . Because 9 petitioner has failed to raise any meritorious issue, we 10 hold that respondent's decision to sustain the proposed 11 collection action was not an abuse of discretion . 12 Petitioner has presented frivolous arguments that 13 have been firmly rejected by this Court and others in the 14 past . Thus we decide on our own motion whether to award a 15 penalty of up to $25,000 against petitioner under I .R .C . 16 section 6673(a) . As a pro se litigant, petitioner struggled 17 in making proper arguments . However, we believe petitioner 18 instituted this action in good faith . There is no evidence 19 that petitioner has been a previous litigant in this Court, 20 nor are we persuaded that petitioner maintained this sui t 21 primarily to delay payment of his taxes . Therefore, we 22 decline to impose a penalty under section 6673(a), but 23 admonish petitioner that we shall not be inclined t o 24 exercise our discretion so favorably in the future if he 25 persists in pursuing frivolous arguments before this Court . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 7 In reaching our holding, we have considered al l arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned, w e conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent . This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact s and opinion . (Whereupon , at 11 : 10 a .m ., the bench opinion in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888