Source: https://freedomclubusa.com/tax_court_at_standstill
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:56:04+00:00

Document:
The following motion brought before the United States Tax Court brought the Court and the IRS to a complete standstill. The case is still pending.
As this Court directed in its order dated December 13, 2004, the Commissioner's admissions to Petitioner's Request for Admissions have been filed with this Court and made a part of the record in this case. They also are public admissions.
favor of Petitioner and against the Commissioner as to the increase in tax, interest and penalty requests.
summary judgment in Petitioner's favor.
maintained the same approval number for over 20 years.
Where Petitioner and the Commissioner first disagree is on whether the 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return is a "request for information form."
"only" requires the submission of a "1040 request for information form" if Petitioner's "gross income" exceed the "Congressionally assigned "exemption amount" the Commissioner stated again that it "Denies that a Form 1040 is a 'request for information.'"
To settle this dispute, whether the Form 1040 is a "request for information" subject to the PRA [Paper Reduction Act], Petitioner directs this Court to decisions by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated in Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990) that: "Typical information collection requests include tax forms, Medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and tax or business records. See S. Rep., at 3-4."
"The 1040 form is the information collection request which arguably must comply with the PRA. It is through the 1040 form that the government obtains all of the tax information it requires."
"They are subsidiary to and mere administrative appendages of the tax form. They function only to aid the taxpayer in providing the information required by the 1040 form."
"As long as the 1040 form complies with the Act, nothing more is required."
Yet, the Commissioner denies the Form 1040 is a "request for information." There can be no doubt that the Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return is a "request for information" by the United States and as such is subject to the PRA.
and penalty calculations claiming Petitioner did not file such form, is the same number appearing for the past 23 years on the 1040 Form.
"Assuming arguendo, that the Paperwork Reduction Act mandates that all federal forms contain expiration dates, this requirement plainly would be satisfied by the dates provided on the 1040 forms at issue."
"On the other hand, the IRS 1040 forms at issue in the present case were explicitly designated as either "1982," "1983," or "1984" tax returns with their effective dates of coverage clearly denoted."
6651 and 6654 of the IRS.
collection request, 44 U.S.C. § 3507(f).
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved was made after December 31, 1981, and does not display a current control number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such request is not subject to this chapter.
Government, and the agency must formulate a plan for tabulating the information in a useful manner."
"After an agency has satisfied itself that an instrument for collecting information - termed an 'information collection request' - is needed, the agency must submit the request to OMB for approval. See 44 U.S.C. § 3507(a)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. V). If OMB disapproves the request, the agency may not collect the information. See 44 U.S.C. § 3507(a).
'a written report form, application form, schedule, questionnaire, reporting or recordkeeping requirement, collection of information requirement, or other similar method calling for the collection of information.' 44 U.S.C. § 3502(11) (1982 ed., Supp. V).
The Supreme Court went on to say that "[W]hile the grammar of this text can be faulted, its meaning is clear: the public is protected under the Paperwork Reduction Act from paperwork regulations not issued in compliance with the Act, only when those regulations dictate that a person maintain information for an agency or provide information to an agency.
The Commissioner argues that since they are "investigating" on "mere suspicion that the tax law is being violated" that "the Paperwork Reduction Act is not applicable to information collection requests issued during an investigation of an individual to determine his or her tax liability." Quoting Lonsdale v. U.S. 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1990).
return, Secretary is required to make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise." Respondent's Admissions @ "-2-"
Respondent has not alleged Petitioner filed a "false or fraudulent" return. Respondent alleges Petitioner did not file a return he was required to file. The only other issue under section 6020(b)(1) is if the Secretary can establish that Petitioner "fails to make a return required under the Internal Revenue Law or related regulations...."
Respondent stated this at the same time Respondent denied that section 6012 was the "law" to which the Secretary relied upon to issue the purported Notice of Deficiency. Id.
Respondent has not identified any section to which Petitioner failed to comply with. Respondent has not identified any provision supporting its issuance of the Notice of Deficiency. Respondent has not identified any specific form of return Petitioner willfully failed to file.
And then there is the "exemption amount" that triggers section 6012 as Respondent then admits. The Commissioner admits that the "exemption amount" that triggers section 6012 is not an amount that Congress wrote in the law. Not one specific provision. Section 6012 says that this amount is found and given the same meaning as section 151(d). Section 151(d) does not provide any specific amount for the years in question.
With no specific amount in the law triggering the requirement under section 6012 and without Respondent identifying any other specific provision Petitioner failed to comply with, Respondent's Notice of Deficiency must be dismissed and an order in favor of Petitioner should be granted.
The Commissioner argues that "I.R.C. § 3518(c)(1)(B)(ii) provides..."
should enter an Order as a matter of law that Respondent's Notice of Deficiency should be dismissed as to the interest and penalty under sections 6651 and 6654 as well as the "increase in tax" as it is not authorized according to laws of the United States.
"All Law is Contract, and Contract between Parties is Law"

References: v. 
 § 3507
 § 3507
 § 3507
 § 3502
 v. 
 § 3518