We The People in Tax Court

The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.
AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

We The People in Tax Court

Postby AndyK » Mon May 20, 2013 11:47 pm

Robert Schulz has been prosecuting the two WTP cases in Tax Court on the basis of never receiving the Notices of Deficiency.

According to his theory, since he was the agent for the WTP Foundation and the WTP Congress, everything had to be served on him. Since he was away from home at the time the notices were served, service was never effected.

Tax Court Judge Robert Carluzzo disagrees:
Tax Court Order - 4/19/13 wrote:RMM
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217
WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners,
V.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Docket No. 20998-10 L, 20999-10 L

OR D E R

Respondent's motions for summary judgment, filed September 8, 2011, in each of these section 6330(d)1 consolidated cases were denied by orders dated February 22, 2012. Consistent with at least one of the reasons for the denials of those motions, a partial trial was conducted in order to establish whether either petitioner received, within the meaning of section 6330(c)(2)(B), a notice of deficiency so as to preclude either petitioner's entitlement to challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liabilities subject to the collection actions here in dispute.

Considering the evidence introduced by the parties at the partial trial, and taking into account other matters established in the record, we find as follows.

1. At all times relevant, petitioners' principal place of business (home office) was located at 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York (Ridge Road), which was also the residence of Robert Schulz, the founder and an officer of each petitioner.

2. Before 2008, Robert Schulz, as an officer of each petitioner, represented petitioners in connection with respondent's examination of each petitioner for 2003.

3. The focus of the examinations apparently involved, at least in part, the status of each petitioner as an exempt organization pursuant to section 501(c)(3).

4. On July 3, 2007, Robert Schulz, as the "Chairman" of each petitioner signed a Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, which extended to December 31, 2008, the period of limitations for the assessment of Federal income and excise taxes due from each petitioner for the taxable period ended December 31, 2003.

5. On December 29, 2008, the section 501(c)(3) status of at least one, if not both petitioners, was "retroactively revoked to January 1, 2003".

6. On December 29, 2008, respondent issued a timely notice of deficiency to each petitioner (deficiency notices) determining a deficiency in the 2003 Federal income tax of each petitioner. Each deficiency results from the revocation or termination of the section 501(c) status of each petitioner. Nothing in the record suggests that as of December 29, 2008, the last known address, within the meaning of section 6212, of either petitioner was other than Ridge Road.

7. On January 2, 2009, a contract delivery driver for the United States Postal Service (USPS) left two USPS Forms 3849, Delivery Notice/Reminder/Receipt (Forms 3849), in petitioners' mailbox at Ridge Road, advising each petitioner that a piece of certified mail was available for pick up at the Glen Falls Post Office in Glen Falls, New York.

8. As it turned out, the pieces of mail to which the Forms 3849 related were the deficiency notices.

9. At the time the Forms 3849 were place in petitioners' mailbox, and for an extended period afterwards, Robert Schulz was traveling on business away from Queensbury, New York.

10. While Robert Schulz was traveling, Michael F. Bodine, also an agent of each petitioner, was present at petitioners' home office. He was there from December 28, 2008, through "the middle of February 2009", and between those dates he "only occasionally" left Ridge Road. While at Ridge Road Mr. Bodine performed numerous and various services for each petitioner, including collecting petitioners' mail.

11. Robert Schulz instructed Mr. Bodine not to sign for any certified mail delivered to Ridge Road while he (Robert Schulz) was traveling on business.

12. According to Mr. Bodine, it was "certainly possible that * * * [he] brought a notice of certified mail being available for pick up at Glen Falls post office to * * * [Robert Schulz's] attention when * * * [they] talked on the phone on one of any numerous phone conversations that occurred" during the relevant time, but Mr. Bodine could not "recall any such specific conversation".

13. The deficiency notices were never claimed by anyone on behalf of either petitioner, and each of the deficiency notices was returned to respondent in the envelope in which it was mailed. Each envelope was stamped "refused" by an employee of the USPS. Neither petitioner commenced a section 6213 proceeding in this Court in response to the deficiency notices.

14. The collection actions involved in this proceeding relate to unpaid assessments (underlying liabilities) made as a result of the issuance of the deficiency notices. See sec. 6213(c). Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that in proceedings such as this one, a taxpayer may challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liability only if, as relevant here, the taxpayer did not "receive a notice of deficiency" with respect to that liability. The deficiency notices mailed to petitioners were returned to respondent and obviously not actually received by petitioners. Actual receipt, however, of a notice of deficiency is not necessary; a taxpayer's
behavior can give rise to constructive receipt, and constructive receipt of a notice of deficiency is sufficient to preclude a taxpayer's entitlement to challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liability in a section 6330(d) proceeding. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).
According to petitioners, they took no action that would amount to constructive receipt of the deficiency notices. They point out that Robert Schulz was traveling at the relevant time, and he did not refuse to pick up the deficiency notices. According to petitioners, the envelopes showing that the deficiency notices were "refused" were stamped in error by the USPS; according to petitioners, they should have been stamped "unclaimed".
Under the circumstances, we attach little significance to the "refused" stamp shown on the envelopes in which the deficiency notices were mailed. We also attach little significance to where Robert Schulz was located as of the date the Forms 3849 were placed in petitioners' mailbox. After all, the deficiency notices are not addressed to him, and he is not a petitioner in this proceeding.

We find it more significant that at the time the deficiency notices were issued and mailed, and as of the date the Forms 3849 with respect to the deficiency notices were placed in petitioners' mailbox, petitioners had an agent at their home office, and that one of that agent's responsibilities was to collect petitioners' mail while Robert Schulz was traveling. The fact that the agent was not authorized by petitioners to sign for certified mail is tantamount to a deliberate failure to claim the deficiency notices, and that deliberate failure constitutes receipt, albeit constructive, of the deficiency notices within the meaning of section 6330(c)(2)(B). See
Campbell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-57, at *15.

That being so, and to reflect the foregoing, it is ORDERED that petitioners are not entitled to challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liabilities in this proceeding. In order to resolve any remaining issues, it is further

ORDERED that these consolidated cases are set for further trial at a special trial session of the Court scheduled to begin at 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday October 30, in courtroom 206, Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278.

It is further ORDERED that the terms and conditions set forth in the Court's Standing Pretrial Order previously served upon the parties remain in full force and effect.

(Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo
Special Trial Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.
April 19, 2013

1 Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

User avatar
Number Six
Hereditary Margrave of Mooloosia
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:35 pm
Location: Connecticut, "The Constitution State"

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby Number Six » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:11 am

Interesting developments, and painfully slow for one of the more vocal and assertive of the tax protesters who has yet to suffer consequences apparently as the others have. I was speaking with an Albany area coin dealer yesterday who remembers seeing him come into the Queensbury area coin show, there is one this weekend there. I mentioned that there are a lot of people who expected the long arm of the law to catch up with him a while ago; as a government worker he said the state of New York picks its targets usually based on profitability, not necessarily true with the IRS, however.
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)

'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3006
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby fortinbras » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:10 am

I am curious about the provenance of this court decision. I cannot find it in Lexis, WestLaw, or the US Tax Court website.

User avatar
KickahaOta
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby KickahaOta » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:44 am

fortinbras wrote:I am curious about the provenance of this court decision. I cannot find it in Lexis, WestLaw, or the US Tax Court website.


That's odd; it shows right up in Orders Search on the US Tax Court site if you search using the date and judge listed above. Let's see if this link is durable: https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrders/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexSearchableOrdersID=102036

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3006
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby fortinbras » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:12 pm

I stand corrected. I could not find this using the US Tax Ct search engine, and it isn't in WestLaw or Lexis. Thanks enormously.

User avatar
KickahaOta
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby KickahaOta » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:53 pm

fortinbras wrote:I stand corrected. I could not find this using the US Tax Ct search engine, and it isn't in WestLaw or Lexis. Thanks enormously.


Let me show you how to do it, since the US Tax Court site hides this functionality quite well: Click the Orders tab on the site. You'll see a list of orders, which usually will be empty or have just one or two orders. But just above that list, you'll see a small link saying "Go to Orders Search". Click that, and you get a search form that you can use to search for orders by date/by judge/by keyword, just like the much more prominent Opinions Search tab lets you do for opinions.

Edited: I should have mentioned that a keyword search for "6673" on the Orders Search page can reveal much tax denier/sovereign citizen hijinks that don't show up in the main Opinions tab. For example, a Carmelo Grasso just tried the standard "I'm a private-sector employee, not a federal employee" gambit in response to a levy notice, and got a $3K frivpen for his troubles: https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrders/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexSearchableOrdersID=110412

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby Dr. Caligari » Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:39 am

Grasso sounds like one of Hendrickson's Heroes.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7208
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby Famspear » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:45 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:Grasso sounds like one of Hendrickson's Heroes.


I think you're right.

She has been the petitioner in at least two U.S. Tax Court cases: case # 6492-12 and case 8571-13L.

EDIT: "Camelo Grasso" sounds to me like a guy's name, but the Court does refer to Camelo as "she."

EDIT for spelling. Camelo, not Carmelo.

EDIT: Well, I see the Court spells it one way in one case, and another way in the other.

EDIT: Well, now I see that the Court refers to Camelo (or Carmelo or whoever it is) as both "him" and "her" in the same document (an order on June 20, 2012, in case number 6492-12).
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 11068
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:29 pm

I guess confused in one realm of reality, confused in another.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: We The People in Tax Court

Postby LPC » Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:29 pm

Tax Court Order - 4/19/13 wrote:ORDERED that these consolidated cases are set for further trial at a special trial session of the Court scheduled to begin at 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday October 30, in courtroom 206, Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278.

The docket shows that a later, 07/15/2013, Order, sets 10/30/13 "for hearing on petr. motion for reconsideration of Order dated 4/19/13."

Nothing after that (so far).
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.


Return to “TP Status Board: Tracking Promoters and High-Profile TPs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests