http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1075
The U.S. Tax Court does have a case, Joseph Alan Fennell v. Commissioner, docket no. 26285-07L. Fennell filed his petition on November 14, 2007. After a motion by the government to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court dismissed Fennell's case on June 17, 2008.
The tax years involved were 2001 and 2002. Statutory notices of deficiency were apparently issued on February 22, 2006. It appears that Fennell did not file a timely petition in Tax Court. Fennell apparently admitted receiving the notice of deficiency for 2002, having "Refused for cause, without dishonor" (see footnote 3 of the Court's June 17, 2008 Order of Dismissal and Decision). The taxes would have been assessed long before Fennell filed his Tax Court case.
The Tax Court outlined "the gist" of Fennell's argument, quoting from Fennell's amended petition:
---From footnote 4 of the Court's June 17, 2008 Order of Dismissal and Decision, quoting from Fennell's amended petition.Respondent's alleged assessments of federal income tax against petitioner are based upon respondent's deliberate inclusion into petitioner's income of pay received in exchange for petitioner's non-federally privileged private sector labor.
Non-federally-privileged private sector labor is not properly the subject of an excise under the excise laws of the United States.
The Tax Court rejected Fennell's argument, stating that his challenge "is frivolous and groundless", citing, inter alia, Internal Revenue Code section 61(a)(1); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981); Monaco v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1998-284; Hartman v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 542, 546 (1975); and Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379, 1381-1382 (9th Cir. 1988).
The Tax Court also concluded that Fennell had received the notices of deficiency, and that section 6330(c)(2)(B) bars Fennell from challenging the existence or amount of the tax liabilities.
Fennell is apparently appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, case no. 08-1314.