Schlosser v. Comm'r

2007 T.C. Memo. 298, 94 T.C.M. 346, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 300
United States Tax Court·Decided October 1, 2007·No. No. 23356-06L·Unpublished·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

JAMES KERR SCHLOSSER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Schlosser v. Comm'r
No. 23356-06L
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2007-298; 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 300; 94 T.C.M. (CCH) 346;
October 1, 2007, Filed
*300
James Kerr Schlosser, Pro se.
Kristina L. Rico, for respondent.
Ruwe, Robert P.

ROBERT P. RUWE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUWE, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673. 1

BACKGROUND

Respondent sent to petitioner a Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing and a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 with respect to unpaid tax that had previously been assessed for the 1994 tax year. Petitioner timely requested a hearing with respect to each notice.

In a letter dated August 17, 2006, acknowledging petitioner's hearing requests, respondent's Appeals officer advised petitioner that a telephonic hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2006, at 12:30 p.m. The letter advised petitioner that the issues raised in his hearing requests are those that courts have determined are frivolous. However, the Appeals officer advised petitioner that he would be allowed a face-to-face hearing *301on any relevant, nonfrivolous issue, or a hearing via correspondence, if petitioner appropriately requested such a hearing within 14 days. The letter also advised petitioner that if he desired to pursue alternative collection methods, he should provide a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, and a signed tax return for the 2005 tax period. Petitioner did not call respondent at the scheduled time for the hearing, nor did he indicate in a timely fashion that such date and/or time was inconvenient.

On October 13, 2006, respondent's Appeals Office issued to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) sustaining the proposed levy and lien filing. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court to dispute the notice of determination relying on the following alleged facts:

a) The Federal Income Tax system for individual tax purposes is based upon a self-assessed system and is 100%voluntary [sic].

b) After self-assessment, the Petitioner had found that he had no federal tax liability for the calendar year 1994.

c) The Petitioner did file a Statement in lieu *302of a Federal Income Tax Form 1040.

d) The Petitioner is not required by Law to file a Tax Form 1040.

e) The Petitioner is an Inhabitant of Pennsylvania state/commonwealth, a Republic, one of the Fifty States of the Union, also known as, the united states of America.

f) The Petitioner is not self-employed or gainfully employed for that matter.

g) The Petitioner is not an agent, servant, officer, director, or employee of the government, nor is he subject to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.

h) The Petitioner is not required by Law to file any tax forms, as he has no income form [sic] 'any source derived therefrom' by legal definition indicated in the Code.

i) The Petitioner is not in the military.

j) The Petitioner is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a foreign corporation to the Fifty States of the Union, as evidenced in 28 U.S.C.A. sections 3002(2) and (15)(A) and the Clearfield Doctrine.

The Clearfield Doctrine. Wherein the United States Supreme Court held:

"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. . . . Where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Bank Notes *, from a private *303Banking Corporation, known as the Fed] and securities [checks] is concerned. . . . for purposes of suit, such corporations are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Clearfield, supra. (Emphasis added).

In another U.S. Supreme Court case, United States vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242, 60 S. Ct. 488, 84 L. Ed. 724, the Court held:

"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation."

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Schlosser v. Comm'r, 2007 T.C. Memo. 298, 94 T.C.M. 346, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 300 (tax 2007).

2007 T.C. Memo. 298 (Schlosser v. Comm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Royce Preston v. Commissioner
2018 T.C. Summary Opinion 4 (U.S. Tax Court, 2018)
Sullivan v. Comm'r
2017 T.C. Memo. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Macinnis v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 78 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)
Hill v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Memo. 181 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)
Canaday v. Comm'r
2015 T.C. Summary Opinion 57 (U.S. Tax Court, 2015)
Stallings Greenhouse & Nursery, LLC v. Comm'r
2015 T.C. Memo. 62 (U.S. Tax Court, 2015)
Marvin Morris Bartosovsky v. Commissioner
2012 T.C. Summary Opinion 101 (U.S. Tax Court, 2012)
Bartosovsky v. Comm'r
2012 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 97 (U.S. Tax Court, 2012)
Starkman v. Comm'r
2012 T.C. Memo. 236 (U.S. Tax Court, 2012)
Curran v. Comm'r
2012 T.C. Memo. 234 (U.S. Tax Court, 2012)
Yoel v. Comm'r
2012 T.C. Memo. 222 (U.S. Tax Court, 2012)