Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4290107/Beale-Petition
Timestamp: 2015-08-02 17:31:43
Document Index: 687184293

Matched Legal Cases: ['Case No: 62', 'art 215', 'art 31', '§301', '§3001', '§ 6011']

P. 1Beale PetitionBeale PetitionRatings: (0)|Views: 228|Likes: 1Published by Sharon AndersonEducational, Title26 501(c)3,takings,realestate,taxesEducational, Title26 501(c)3,takings,realestate,taxesMore info:Categories:Types, Research, Business & EconomicsPublished by: Sharon Anderson on Jul 30, 2008Copyright:Public DomainAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/4290107/Beale-Petition04/19/2012pdftextoriginal Beale v. McClure
In the Ramsey County District Court, Civil DivisionState of Minnesota
Robert B. Beale,))Plaintiff,) Judge: M. Michael Monahan)v.)Case No: 62-C2-03-008356)Jerry McClure,)Director Individual Income Tax,)Minnesota Department of Revenue))Defendant.)
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT IN THENATURE OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER AUTHORITYOF ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA
JUDICIAL NOTICE1.
Officers of the court who may come in contact with the matter of Beale v.McClure, Director of Individual Income Tax, are noticed under authority of thesupremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and thecommon law authorities of Haines v Kerner , 404 U.S. 519-421,
Platsky v. C.I.A.
953F.2d. 25, and
223 F.3d 898 (8
Cir. 2000). In re
: prose litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys
of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to theopportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re
: court errs if courtdismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how torepair pleadings. In re
Anastasoff : litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courtsdepart from precedent where parties are similarly situated.Page 1 of 20
A court may dismiss a pleading for failure to state a claim "only if it appears toa certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, existwhich would support granting the relief demanded."
N. States Power Co. v. Franklin
,265 Minn. 391, 395, 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963),
, 588 N.W.2d 772, 1999.MN.42154, A claim prevails against a motion todismiss if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader's theory, to grant the relief demanded. The purpose of a motion to dismiss is totest the law’s support for a claim, not the sufficiency of the underlying facts,
Patel v.OMH Medical Center, Inc.
987 P.2d 1185 (1999). The burden to show legalinsufficiency of petition is on party moving for dismissal, and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must separately state each omission or defect in petition; if it doesnot, motion shall be denied without hearing,
Indiana Nat. Bank v. State Dept. of Human Services
Okla., 880 P.2d 371 (1994). And demurrers have been abolished – see FederalRules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(c).
. Minnesota Rule 8001.9 incorporates the Federal Internal Revenue Code intothe Minnesota Rules by reference. The State of Minnesota has entered into agreementwith the Federal government to establish their qualified state income tax particularized in5 USC 5517 and 31 CFR Part 215. Administration of qualified state income taxes isgoverned by regulations published in 26 CFR Part 31. The State of Minnesota hasabdicated both administrative and judicial remedies to the Federal Government under 26CFR §301.6361-2. Therefore, the Federal Debt Collection Procedure, 28 USC §3001, isthe exclusive remedy for tax related debt. It provides substantive rights secured by thefourth, fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments to the United States Constitution, restrictingadministrative and judicial powers and the government bears the burden of proof for whatever claim is made.
The MDR consistently quotes Minnesota statutes as authority for their behavior. However, courts have consistently stated that statutes have no force or effectwithout implementing regulations. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 8001.9,Minnesota’s regulations are the Federal regulations for the state income tax. There are noother Minnesota rules implementing most of Minnesota Statutes, chapters 270, 271, 290and 290A. Therefore, the MDR is required to submit to the Federal regulations thatPage 2 of 20
Beale v. McClure provide substantive rights under the Constitution of the United States and due process of law.
In order for there to be (1) liability for any given tax imposed by the InternalRevenue Code, or (2) a requirement to collect any given tax imposed by the InternalRevenue Code, an implementing
must apply to the fact circumstance of the person liable. The requirement for implementing
is restated in the generalrule that controls 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a): “When required by
prescribed by theSecretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to thecollection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and
prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations
4(b) California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz , 39 L.Ed. 2d 812 at 820: “Because it hasa bearing on some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that theAct’s civil and criminal penalties
attach only upon violation of regulations
promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself wouldimpose no penalties on anyone.” In
, 809 F.2d 1427 at 1430 (9
Cir.1987), following California Bankers Association rationale, the court said “The reportingact is not self-executing;
it can impose no reporting duties until implementingregulations have been promulgated
, 794 F.2d 506 at 508 (9
Cir.1986) the court said, “
An individual cannot be prosecuted for violating this Act unlesshe violates an implementing regulation
… The result is that neither the statute nor theregulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. Ineffect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of theother.”
, 361 U.S. 431, 4 L.Ed. 2d 423, 80 S.Ct. 459 (1960), agreed with in
Leyeth v. Hoey
U.S. v. $200,00 in U.S. Currency
, 590 F.Supp. 866;
U.S. v. Palzer , 745 F.2d 1350 (1984);
U.S. v. Cook , 745 F.2d 1311 (1984);
U.S. v. Gertner , 65F.3d 963 (1
Diamond Ring Ranch v. Morton
, 531 F.2d 1397, 1401 (1976);
U.S. v. Omega Chemical Corp
, 156 F.3d 994 (9
Cir. 1998);
, 849 F.2d562, 565 (11
Cir. 1988);
, 754 F.2d 521, 523-24 (1985);
U.S. v.Goldfarb
, 643 F.2d. 422, 429-30 (1981). “For Federal tax purposes, the FederalRegulations govern.
, 1938, 305 U.S. 188, 59 S.Ct. 155, 83 L.Ed. 119,”quoted in
Dodd v. U.S.
223 F.Supp. 785 (1963).
The Supreme Court of Minnesota has determined that the MinnesotaLegislature has not provided adequately for trial by jury in the statutes and that trial by jury is always available to review statutory law and administrative decisions.
Abraham v. County of Hennepin
, 2002,639 N.W.2d 342. (“one form of Page 3 of 20
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads1 thousand readsGerrit Timmerman liked thisLoad more