Cases involving Pete Hendrickson's scam

[Doktor Avalanche]

Yup...that's designed to totally ruin your day.

[Truthstalker]

Only a cannibal would take a pot shot at a human being since, by definition, a pot shot is an easy target destined for the shooter's cooking pot.

[Weston White]

I have become so accustomed to proving you suckers wrong, I actually take joy in it now... I mean at first I felt guilty, so much so that being a member of this forum has driven me to drink heavily. Though now I have desensitized and am currently on my 8th step and doing very well according to my AA counselor (I know I have only been a member here for a few weeks, but trust me on this story, it is true). So once again things are looking up.

That is not what it means that is how the phrase was devised. That said a pot shot is taken to mean an easy shot or a cheap shot, as in no skill required.

1pot·shot
Etymology: from the notion that such a shot is unsportsmanlike and worthy only of one whose object is to fill the cooking pot
Date: 1858
1 : a shot taken from ambush or at a random or easy target
2 : a critical remark made in a random or sporadic manner

[Lambkin]

WTF? What can you say?

[Nikki]

It takes quite a bit of searching among all the available definitions to find one which excludes

a pothunter's shot
an easy shot, as at close range

or

a shot fired at an animal within easy range

or

from pothunter's shot - one who shoots for trophies, or
shots taken for the pot, ie for food.

or

a shot fired simply to fill the pot; hence, a shot fired at an animal or person when at rest or within easy range, or fired simply to kill, without reference to the rules of sport; a shot needing no special skill.

But, when you're trying to prove an inane point, ignoring the majority of the facts is a reasonable tool.

[Weston White]

Funny how you left out the perhaps the most obvous location to look for a word definition: Merriam-Webster's, which is the first and last place I looked the word at. Though you proved a good point, it of course obviously applies to yourself.

BTW, I guess you missed this at the top of the MW definition: Etymology: from the notion that such a shot is unsportsmanlike and worthy only of one whose object is to fill the cooking pot

[Gregg]

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821

[Lambkin]

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821

I now have this image of Gregg in vestments swinging a pot of incense and shaking a little holy water on each thread as he repeats this chant.

[Weston White]

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821

Actually, you would more correctly be labeled a troll than myself. Below I have included the definition of a troll to clue you in. Now being that it is you, yourself that is bringing up entirely unrelated issues, such as Hendrickson for example that makes you a troll. See you do this because you have to avoid the real core issues and topics, because simply put you can’t handle them, you realize that the issues being brought forth are entirely destructive to the foundation in which Quatloos.com has been built up on, the facade, the lie, the farce. You realize that your very foundation is crumbling away and your footing is getting becoming desperate.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response [1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Say hello to Gregg…




Hello visitor, since you are already here visiting, let’s meet the rest of the Quatloos crew:




Individually they are:


Famspear


Nikki


Demo


LPC


ASITStands


Judge Roy Bean


Prof


Paul


The Observer


Joey Smith


Dr. Caligari


jg


.


Imalawman


UGA Lawdog


Cpt Banjo


Dezcad


Lambkin


Quixote


CaptainKickback


Duke2Earl


webhick


And of Course Jay David Adkisson, the man, the myth, the legend himself... we owe it all to him and his innovations!

[Duke2Earl]

Actually, I wish I looked that good.

[BBFlatt]

Pretty buff there Duke, you been working out?

[Demosthenes]

Mine's cute!

[Dezcad]

Mine's cute!

In a "Prejean" sort of way.

[Imalawman]

Dude, don't f with me, I'm one bad ass tax lawyer. Just think of the cases that I would win if I looked like that. The IRS would fold everytime...

[Judge Roy Bean]

Not to further derail this, but it appears WW's imagination is bi-polar:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... how#p66102

[Arthur Rubin]

I thought an admin edited that without setting the "edited by" flag. You mean WW posted it himself?

[Famspear]

Getting back to Hendrickson follower Joe Fennell --

I am sad to say that it appears that Joseph Alan Fennell is actually licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in Georgia -- License number CPA008645, issued on September 18, 1986 (per the Georgia Secretary of State web site).

This individual has been mentioned on the losthorizons web site by John J. Bulten and others. Just this week, Fennell (or "Fennel") is mentioned by CtC user "demolane" as being the head of the Georgia CtC forum, here:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1872

Fennell's U.S. Tax Court case is notable because the Tax Court specifically mentioned Fennell's classic "Pete Hendrickson" arguments (though the Court did not mention Hendrickson or Cracking the Code by name). The Tax Court stated:

The gist of petitioner's challenge appears thusly in the 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.

See Joseph Alan Fennell v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26285-07L, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (June 17, 2008), footnote 4. The argument was, of course, rejected by the Tax Court.

Fennell lost on appeal as well. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Fennell's challenges were "frivolous on the merits in any event." Joseph Alan Fennell v. Commissioner, no. 08-1314, March 12, 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per curiam).

I hope, for Joe Fennell's sake, that he does not end up joining another Georgia CPA (actually, a former CPA), Sherry Peel Jackson (who is now in Federal prison on a federal tax conviction).

[Nikki]

Courtesy of Tax Analysts

The Oregon Tax Court has denied a taxpayer's income tax deficiency assessment claims that he did not have taxable income because the evidence showed that the taxpayer was employed and received taxable wages.

MARIO A. NEGRETE, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF OREGON, Defendant.

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Income Tax

June 12, 2009

The opinion of the court was delivered by:
Jill A. Tanner Presiding Magistrate

DECISION

Plaintiff appeals Defendant's Notice of Deficiency Assessment, dated October 10, 2008, for tax year 2007. The parties agreed at the case management conference held February 9, 2009, to submit the matter to the court on motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (sic) was filed March 9, 2009. Defendant did not file a responsive pleading.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff states that "Plaintiff had no "taxable income" for the tax year 2007." (Ptf's Mot for Summ J at 1.) He wrote: "Plaintiff properly rebutted and corrected bad payer information on a 2007 W-2, using form 4852 along with form 1040ez (Exhibit D, p.5-6) and filed it with the Internal Revenue Service. The I.R.S. responded with notice CP13 (Exhibit D, p.7-8), their response confirms the fact that Plaintiff had no "taxable income" for the tax year 2007. * * * Therefore, Plaintiff used this information return to file Oregon tax form 40S." (Id.) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) letter, dated May 19, 2008, stated that "there is an error on your 2007 Federal Income Tax Return. * * * We changed the amount claimed as federal income tax withheld on Line 7 of your Form 1040EZ to reflect the amounts reported on Forms(s) W-2, 1099, or other supporting documents." (Ptf's Ex D at 7.) The IRS denied Plaintiff's request for a $3,468.53 refund for "federal income tax withheld." (Ptf's Ex D at 6, 8.)

Defendant issued a Notice of Deficiency, dated September 3, 2008, stating that Plaintiff "received wages from Time Frame, Inc." in the amount of $45,340. (Ptf's Ex A at 3.) Plaintiff listed Time Frame Inc. as his employer on Form 4852, "Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc." (Ptf's Ex D at 5.) In its Notice of Deficiency, Defendant stated that Plaintiff's failure to report wages as taxable income for multiple years lead it to conclude that Plaintiff's 2007 filed return was a "fraudulent return under ORS 314.400. ORS 314.400(3)(b) states that a penalty equal to 100% of any deficiency determined by the department shall be assessed if a report or return was falsely prepared and filed with intent to evade tax. The Department has determined there is a substantial understatement of taxable income for this tax year. Therefore, there shall be added to the amount of tax required to be shown on the return a penalty equal to 20% of the amount of any underpayment of tax attributable to the understatement of taxable income. (ORS 314.402)." (Ptf's Ex A at 3.) In addition, Defendant assessed a $250 penalty because it concluded that Plaintiff took "a "frivolous position" in respect to preparing [his] return." (Ptf's Ex A at 4.) Defendant's Notice of Deficiency Assessment was issued on October 10, 2008. (Ptf's Ex C.)

In its Answer, Defendant requested that the court "uphold the department's assessment." (Def's Answer at 2.) In addition, Defendant requested that "the court * * * award damages for a frivolous or groundless appeal under ORS 305.437. * * * Section 2 of ORS 305.437 states that a taxpayer's position is "frivolous" if there was no objectively reasonable basis for asserting the position. The Plaintiff has presented no legitimate reasons why his income should not be taxed." (Id.)

II. ANALYSIS

Oregon residents are taxed on their entire taxable income which is defined as "the federal taxable income" under "the laws of the United States, with modifications, additions and subtractions provided in this chapter." ORS 316.048. \1\

There is no dispute that Plaintiff is a resident of Oregon. Plaintiff reported no federal taxable income. (Ptf's Ex A at 3.) Defendant disputed Plaintiff's reported federal taxable income. Plaintiff states "nder penalties of perjury" that his employer was Time Frame Inc. (Ptf's Ex D at 5.) Plaintiff did not submit a copy of a W-2 from Time Frame Inc. On his state income tax return forms, Plaintiff reported no wages or W-2 income. Defendant wrote that Plaintiff "earned wages from Time Frame, Inc. The wages Mr. Negrete received are taxable to Oregon." (Def's Ans at 1.) Defendant wrote that Plaintiff failed to report wages he earned on prior year Oregon income tax returns including tax years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. (Id.)

"In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief." ORS 305.427 (emphasis added.) Plaintiff must establish his claim "by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of evidence." Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev., TC No 4530 at 4 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 302 (1971)). Having failed to prove that wages are not taxable income in prior proceedings before this court, \2\ Plaintiff fails to carry the burden of proof in the matter now before the court, where once again he argues that he has no taxable income even though he admits to being employed by Time Frame Inc. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion that the IRS agrees with Plaintiff that he has no taxable income, the IRS letter dated May 19, 2008, refers to the one change it made to Plaintiff's filed return. (Ptf's Ex D at 7.) That one change was to deny Plaintiff's requested refund of federal withheld tax. The IRS letter makes no representation about the correctness of Plaintiff's reported federal taxable income.

Plaintiff reaches an erroneous conclusion that "[t]here is no legal mechanism by which Plaintiff can be coerced by the Defendant, who is presumed to know the law, into reporting one amount of adjusted gross income on a federal return and a different amount on a state return." (Ptf's Mot for Summ J at 2.) ORS 305.265(4) authorizes Defendant to review filed returns:

"[w]ith respect to any tax return filed under ORS chapter 314, 316, 317 or 318, deficiencies shall include but not be limited to the assertion of additional tax arising from:
"(a) The failure to report properly items or amounts of income subject to or which are the measure of the tax."

Plaintiff failed to report an item of income and Defendant assessed a deficiency in accordance with ORS 305.265.

Defendant asked the court to award damages because Plaintiff filed a frivolous appeal. The Oregon Supreme Court recently concluded that "the legislature clearly intended an award of "damages" under ORS 305.437 to compensate the department for its actual losses caused by a taxpayer's pursuit of a frivolous position in proceedings before the Oregon Tax Court." Dept. of Rev. v. Croslin (Croslin), 345 Or 620, 633 (2009). Defendant did not present any evidence of damages. Defendant submitted no evidence of "actual losses, costs, or expenses to the department caused by [Plaintiff's] frivolous position." Id. Defendant's request for damages is denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's belief that wages are not taxable income has been asserted by other taxpayers who have not prevailed. Combs v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 60, 61 (1999), aff'd, 331 Or 245, 14 P3d 584 (2000) (holding that such a claim was "unrealistic and uninformed" and that "wages are clearly taxable"); Clark v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 197, 200 (2000), aff'd, 332 Or 236, 26 P3d 821 (2001) (stating that such a position is "patently distorted and removed from reality.") In Oregon, the law is clear: wages are taxable income. Plaintiff's appeal is denied.

Because Defendant failed to offer evidence of its "actual losses, costs or expenses," the court denies its request for damages under ORS 305.437. Croslin at 663. Now, therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff's appeal is denied; and IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Defendant's request for damages is denied.

Dated this 12th day of June 2009

This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A. Tanner on June 12, 2009. The Court filed and entered this document on June 12, 2009.

FOOTNOTES

1 References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to year 2005.
2 Negrete v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 134 (2006).

END OF FOOTNOTES

emphasis added

[buck09]

http://www.wisbar.org/res/txap/2007/06-i-282.htm

I'm assuming that a 4852, substitute W2 and "corrected" 1099-MISC are indicative of CTC.

You can find more information in PACER (U.S. DC - E. Wisconsin) about an IRS CID raid on his employer back in February of this year. As far as I can tell (which doesn't count for much, as I'm a rank amateur at online legal research), no formal charges have been filed against him in Tax Court or Federal District Court.

I suspect he's the same person mentioned on Pete's page: http://www.losthorizons.com/GoingOnOffense.htm

STATE OF WISCONSIN

TAX APPEALS COMMISSION

JAMES A. STUART, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs.

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Respondent.
DOCKET NO. 06-I-282

RULING AND ORDER

DAVID C. SWANSON, COMMISSIONER:

This case comes before the Commission on the motion of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue ("Department") for summary judgment on the basis that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the Department is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Wis. Stat. § 802.08 and Wis. Admin. Code § TA 1.31. Although the amount in controversy qualifies this case as a small claims case, the Commission has determined on its own motion that this case will not be heard as such under Wis. Stat. § 73.01(1)(b).

Petitioner appears pro se and has filed a brief in opposition to the motion with attached affidavits and exhibits. Attorney Sheree Robertson represents the Department and has filed an affidavit with exhibits and a brief in support of the motion, as well as a reply brief.

Having considered the entire record, including the motion, affidavits, exhibits and briefs, the Commission hereby finds, rules, and orders as follows:

JURISDICTIONAL AND MATERIAL FACTS

1. By Notice to petitioner dated July 10, 2006, the Department notified petitioner that tax and interest totaling $2,167.31 remained due on his Wisconsin income tax return for the year 2005 (the "year at issue") (the "Assessment"). (Affidavit of Sheree Robertson filed March 5, 2007, Ex. 1.)

2. Under date of July 13, 2006, petitioner filed with the Department an objection to the Assessment, which the Department treated as a timely petition for redetermination. In his objection, petitioner asserted that his 2005 wages did not constitute "wages" reportable as income for federal or Wisconsin income tax purposes. (Robertson Affidavit, Ex. 2.)

3. By Notice of Action dated October 30, 2006 issued to petitioner, the Department denied the petition for redetermination on the basis that petitioner's 2005 wages were subject to Wisconsin income tax. (Robertson Affidavit, Ex. 3.)

4. On December 11, 2006, petitioner filed a "Motion for Determination of Status," which the Commission received and treated as a petition for review of the Assessment.

5. On January 8, 2007, the Department filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it did not constitute a petition for review, and, in the alternative, an answer to the petition.

6. On January 30, 2007, the Commission issued its Order denying the Department's motion to dismiss and directing petitioner to file a statement supporting the petition as required by Wis. Stat. § 73.01(5)(b) by February 20, 2007.

7. On February 12, 2007, petitioner filed a statement setting forth the facts and legal arguments that are the basis for his petition.

8. On February 27, 2007, the Department filed an answer to the petition.

9. On March 5, 2007, the Department filed a Notice of Motion, Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting affidavit and exhibits.

10. On March 13, 2007, the Commission ordered briefing on the Department's motion.

11. On March 21, 2007, petitioner filed a brief in opposition to the motion, with attached affidavits and exhibits.

12. On April 2, 2007, the Department filed a reply brief.

13. On April 30, 2007, petitioner filed his "Latest Reply to a Motion for Summary Judgment," with an affidavit.

14. Petitioner filed a Wisconsin individual income tax return for the year at issue as a full-year Wisconsin resident. On that return, petitioner reported his federal adjusted gross income as totaling $631.00, which included no wage income. (Robertson Affidavit, Ex. 4.)

15. Attached to petitioner's 2005 Wisconsin income tax return were a 2005 IRS Form 4852 Substitute Form W-2 and a "Corrected" 2005 IRS Form 1099-MISC, apparently prepared by petitioner, that reported zero income paid to him by New Age Chemical Inc. for that year. (Robertson Affidavit, Ex. 4.)

16. New Age Chemical Inc., petitioner's employer, filed a 2005 IRS Form W-2 reporting that it paid wages to petitioner totaling $125,114.84 for that year. (Affidavit of Earl N. Munson filed March 30, 2007, ¶ 5, Ex. 1.)

RULING

A summary judgment motion will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2). A party moving for summary judgment has the burden to establish the absence of a genuine, that is, disputed, issue as to any material fact. Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis. 2d 332, 338-39, 294 N.W.2d 473 (1980).

If the moving party establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment, the court then examines the affidavits in opposition to the motion to see if the other party's affidavits show facts sufficient to entitle him to trial. Artmar, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co., 34 Wis.2d 181, 188, 148 N.W.2d 641, 644 (1967). Once a prima facie case is established, "the party in opposition to the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but must, by affidavits or other statutory means, set forth specific facts showing that there exists a genuine issue requiring a trial." Board of Regents v. Mussallem, 94 Wis. 2d 657, 673, 289 N.W.2d 801, 809 (1980), citing Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3). Any evidentiary facts in an affidavit are to be taken as true unless contradicted by other opposing affidavits or proof. Artmar, 34 Wis.2d at 188. Where the party opposing summary judgment fails to respond or raise an issue of material fact, the trial court is authorized to grant summary judgment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3). Board of Regents, 94 Wis.2d at 673.

Wisconsin Statutes § 71.02(1) provides that "there shall be assessed, levied, collected and paid a tax on all net incomes of individuals . . . residing within the state . . . ." Net income is derived from gross income, after subtracting allowable statutory deductions and exemptions. See Wis. Stat. § 71.01(16) (defining "Wisconsin taxable income"). "Gross income" is defined as "all income, from whatever source derived and in whatever form realized, whether in money, property or services, which is not exempt from Wisconsin income taxes", and includes, but is not limited to, "compensation for services, including wages [and] salaries . . . ." Wis. Stat. § 71.03(1).

Assessments made by the Department are presumed to be correct, and the burden is on petitioner to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence in what respects the Department erred in its determination. Edwin J. Puissant, Jr. v. Dep't of Revenue, Wis. Tax Rptr. (CCH) ¶ 202-401 (WTAC 1984); Wis. Stat. § 77.59(1). Petitioner has failed to meet his burden to prove that the Assessment is incorrect.

Petitioner filed a petition for review and responded to the Department's motion, but he has never submitted any evidence to support his own claims or rebut the Department's evidence or arguments. Petitioner instead has filed documents that recite arguments typically offered by tax protestors.

Petitioner does not deny that he was a Wisconsin resident during all of 2005, nor that he was required to file a Wisconsin income tax return for that year, which he in fact filed. Nor does petitioner deny that his employer, New Age Chemical Inc., paid him an amount totaling $125,114.84 in 2005, which it reported as wages paid to him on a 2005 IRS Form W-2. Thus, there are no material facts in dispute in this case. However, petitioner asserts that wages paid by a private for-profit employer do not constitute taxable income in Wisconsin. The only issue in dispute, therefore, is whether the Assessment is invalid as a matter of law under the definition of "wages" applicable for Wisconsin income tax purposes. (1)

In Callahan v. Dep't of Revenue, WTAC Docket No. 05-I-107 (January 9, 2006) and Jerry E. and Lorilee L. King v. Dep't of Revenue, WTAC Docket No. 06-I-32 (September 18, 2006), the Commission considered cases with facts and legal arguments that were very similar to the facts and law at issue in this case. In those cases, the petitioners argued, on a variety of grounds, that various types of wages are effectively immune from Wisconsin income tax. We rejected those arguments in Callahan and King, and we reject them again here.

In his petition and subsequent filings, petitioner relies on a litany of tired tax protestor legal arguments, apparently to delay or avoid paying state income taxes for the year at issue. These arguments and ones like them have been consistently rejected in prior cases before the Commission and the courts. They are groundless and frivolous, and have never prevailed in Wisconsin, nor, as far as the Commission is aware, in any court in the country. See Tracy v. Dep't of Revenue, 133 Wis. 2d 151 (Ct. App. 1986); Steele v. Dep't of Revenue, WTAC Docket No. 05-I-79 (December 12, 2005); Kroeger v. Dep't of Revenue, WTAC Docket No. 04-I-228 (March 21, 2005); Boon v. Dep't of Revenue, 1999 Wisc. Tax LEXIS 7 (WTAC 1999), aff'd on other grounds (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct. 1999).

There is no genuine issue of material fact in this case, and the Department is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. In addition, in light of the well-established authority cited above, petitioner's claims are groundless, frivolous, and a waste of state resources. Petitioner is therefore subject to an additional assessment in the amount of $300.00, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 73.01(4)(am).

IT IS ORDERED

1. The Department's motion for summary judgment is granted, and its action on petitioner's petition for redetermination is affirmed.

2. An additional assessment of $300.00 is imposed on petitioner pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 73.01(4)(am).

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 7th day of June, 2007.

WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION

Diane E. Norman, Acting Chairperson

David C. Swanson, Commissioner

ATTACHMENT: "NOTICE OF APPEAL INFORMATION"

1 In his initial petition and in his brief filed on March 21, 2007, petitioner challenges the Commission's jurisdiction to hear his petition. If we agreed with the grounds for petitioner's jurisdictional challenge, which are not at all apparent, we would dismiss the petition. However, we note that petitioner paid the $25.00 statutory filing fee for his petition and has not withdrawn the petition nor moved for its dismissal. Thus, we assume that, despite his statements to the contrary, petitioner consents to the Commission's jurisdiction in this matter.

[.]

no formal charges have been filed against him in Tax Court

Not possible in U.S. Tax Court, it adjudicates civil tax matters only. Whether or not this idiot winds up with federal criminal problems remains to be seen. With any luck he will, but he may be too small a fish to be worth frying.