Hendrickson's Heroes (maybe): Gregory Q. Teeters

[Famspear]

Here's another one: Gregory Q. Teeters v. Commissioner, docket # 24853-08, T.C. Memo. 2010-244 (Nov. 8, 2010):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 47&scilh=0

It's the usual scenario. The guy used a Form 4852 to try to zero out his income (in this case, for years 2002, 2003, and 2005).

The Court noted that on each Form 4852, the taxpayer stated:

the company refuses to issue forms correctly listing payments of `wages' as defined in [sections] 3401(a) and 3121(a) for fear of IRS retaliation. The amounts listed as withheld on the [Form] W-2 it submitted are correct, however....

At one point, the taxpayer stated in a letter to the IRS:

I did not claim that "income" is exempt from tax, nor that "wages" are not "income". What I reported was that, as a private sector worker, some of my pay was not "wages" as defined in IRC Sec. 3401(a) and IRC Sec. 3121(a). Also that I was not an "employee" as defined in IRC Sec. 3401(c).

Do these statements look familiar?



Result: Teeter's arguments ruled to be frivolous. Over $52,000 in tax deficiencies and penalties for the three years in question. The Court ruled that Teeters had engaged in fraud, and that the fraud penalties asserted by the IRS were valid.

[Judge Roy Bean]

And for a while there he had a lot of cash to toss around that he wouldn't have had.

That's an empowering feeling, especially if you believe in the fantasy world in which the IRS is going to be put out of business and won't be able to actually come after you.

Welcome to the Van Peltian world.

[LPC]

Here's another one: Gregory Q. Teeters v. Commissioner, docket # 24853-08, T.C. Memo. 2010-244 (Nov. 8, 2010)

Previously discussed.