Home Page

Introduction


The United States District Court for the Virgin Islands decided an important case in 1996. Cited as Burnett v. Commissioner, KTC 1996-292 (D.V.I. 1996), the court stated that Subtitle A taxes apply only to Washington, D. C. and the Territories.  Referring to Code Section 7701 (a) (definitions) (9), the court pointed out that the term "United States" includes only the above. Section 7701 (a) reads:

and Section 7701(a) (9) reads:

No other definition of "United States" is offered in Subtitle A.  Anyone interested in using this landmark decision as an argument for filing a "zero" tax return should contact:

Kleinrock's Tax Library   1 (800) 678-2315

Be careful!  I have been advised that the case of "Burnett v. Commissioner" was dismissed on a "Motion to Dismiss." GWE


bar


CITE AS: Burnett v. Commissioner, KTC 1996-292 (D.V.I. 1996)



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

ROBERT RAY, BURNETT       )
       and                )                Docket: 96-146
GLEEANNA LYNN BURNETT,    )
                          )             Filed July 12, 1996
       PETITIONERS        )
                          )
       v.                 )
                          )
COMMISSIONER,             )         PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )
                          )
       Respondent.        )
==========================


Petitioners, Robert Ray, Burnett, and Gleeanna Lynn Burnett petition the Court for a redetermination of tax liability pursuant to Local Rule 71A.1 of Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the District Court of the Virgin Islands based upon the following:



JURISDICTION

  1. Jurisdiction is proper because:

    1. The proposed assessment against Robert Ray, Burnett and Gleeanna Lynn Burnett is identified as under the jurisdiction of the Virgin Islands, pursuant to Transaction Code [TC] 150 entered by the Internal Revenue Service into the Petitioner's records for years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 [see Exhibit A and B attached].

    2. The U.S. Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to hear tax cases arising under the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands [see p. 2 "Tax Structure of the U.S. Virgin Islands", published by the Honorable Roy Lester Schneider, Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands], see Exhibit C and therefore, the redetermination must be heard in this Court.

    3. The proposed assessment [see Exhibits K and L] against Robert Ray, Burnett and Gleeanna Lynn Burnett are for Title 26, USC, "Subtitle A Income Tax", and such tax is not applicable to the several states, but only to the District of Columbia, and territories under the jurisdiction of the same. This fact is supported by 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (10) wherein the term "United States" does not include the "50 states" as it does in the definition of "United States" in other sections of the Code [e.g.; Sections 4612(a)(4)(A) and 6103(b)(5). The Virgin Islands is under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, and therefore, Subtitle A taxes are applicable to the Virgin Islands, and therefore, a redetermination of such tax must be heard in a Virgin Islands District Court.

    4. The only delegation orders in existence to grant authority to the IRS Commissioner to carry out his duties are TDO 150-42 and 150-01, [see Exhibits D and E]. Delegation Order 150-01 identifies "districts" in paragraphs 1-4, and then identifies that area over which the Commissioner has authority to ENFORCE the tax code in paragraph 5 -- which specifically identifies authority in U.S. territories and possessions -- not the 50 states. Such delegation authority is imperative to the Commissioner, [26 USC 7701(a)(12)], and in its absence, the Commissioner does not have authority to enforce the Code. The evidence shows that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue only has authority to enforce the Code in territories of Washington, D.C., [and the Virgin Islands is such a territory], therefore, this Court is the only available forum in which to bring this Petition.

    5. While it is admitted that Petitioners are not "residents" of the Virgin Islands, they bring this action to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, pursuant to rule 71A.1, and because of the fact that there is no other remedy at law or equity in which to petition.  The proposed tax assessment pertains only to the "territories" of the "United States" [defined as "Washington, D.C." for purposes of Subtitle A], then only a court of the "territories of the United States" can hear this matter.

    6. The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal and civil proceedings in the Virgin Islands with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands, regardless of the degree of the offense or of the amount involved [48 USC section 1612(a)].

Since the Income Tax Laws of Title 26, Subtitle A are ONLY applicable to United States territories, and since the Virgin Islands is such a territory, jurisdiction is proper in this Court.



VENUE

  1. Venue is proper because the proposed tax assessment is a type of tax collected for the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., and such tax is applicable only to the territories under the authority of Washington, D.C., and such tax is applicable to the Virgin Islands.



NATURE OF THE PARTIES

  1. The Petitioners are domiciled in one of the 50 states, specifically the Oklahoma republic, United States of America.

  2. The Respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, whose authority is delegated to him by the Secretary of the Treasury, and whose authority is currently limited to that delegated authority by TDO 150-01 and 150-42 -- neither of which delegate authority to the Commissioner to operate within the "50 states."



CAUSES FOR RELIEF

  1. ERROR: Petitioners require a redetermination of tax liability because the proposed assessment includes amounts not taxable within the jurisdiction identified by the tax code for Subtitle A. Such assessment should be redetermined to exclude any such amounts -- specifically, the amounts attributed to 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 [see Exhibit A].

  2. ERROR: It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; IMF Specific/Complete Transcripts for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 show fraud in computer entries. Specifically, According to the IMF Complete Transcripts furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1990 [Exhibit A], the Document Locator Number for "LIEN" is 18221-045-05104-3. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS [via FOIA request (see Exhibit F)], the True Tax Class is the third digit in the Document Locator Number [hereinafter DLN] is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 051 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 000-199 to be reported on Form CT-1 -- Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Repayment Tax Return. Petitioners have never been engaged in any "railroad" activity. Petitioners own a trailer hitch business and have no source income from any railroad activity. Therefore, the information used to assess, lien, levy and seize Petitioners' private property and monies is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at para. (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for LIEN for tax year 1990 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2 -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G] while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "0"] indicates a taxable class of  "0" -- Employee Plans Master File [EMPF]. Petitioner has not, for year 1990, submitted any Employee Plans Master File. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes for Employee Plans Master File which is absurd since Petitioner has absolutely no income from any Employee Plans Master File.

  1. ERROR: It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; IMF Specific/Complete Transcripts for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 show fraud in computer entries. Specifically, according to the IMF Specific/Complete Transcripts furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1991 [Exhibit A], the Document Locator Number for "LIEN" is 18221-060-05948-3. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit G], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 060 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 000-199 -- Form CT-1 Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Repayment Tax Return. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for LIEN for tax year 1991 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G] while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "0"] indicates a taxable class of "0" -- Employee Plans Master File [EMPF]. Petitioner has not, for year 1991, submitted any Employee Plans Master File. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes for Employee Plans Master File - which is absurd since Petitioner has absolutely no income from any Employee Plans Master File.

  1. ERROR: It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; IMF Specific/Complete Transcripts for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 show fraud in computer entries. Specifically, according to the IMF Specific/Complete Transcripts furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1992 [Exhibit A], the Document Locator Number for "LIEN" is 18247-644-00087-4. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 000 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 000-199 to be reported on Form CT-1 -- Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Repayment Tax Return. Petitioners have never been engaged in any "railroad" activity. Therefore, the information used to assess and lien Petitioners is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series willidentify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the LIEN on tax year 1992 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "0"] indicates a taxable class of "0" -- Employee Plans Master File [EMPF]. Petitioner has not, for year 1992, submitted any Employee Plans Master File. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes for Employee Plans Master File -- which is absurd since Petitioner has absolutely no income from any Employee Plans Master File.

  1. Specific/Complete Transcripts for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 show fraud in computer entries. Specifically, According to the IMF Specific Transcripts furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1993 [Exhibit A], the Document Locator Number for "LIEN" is 18210-196-00617-5. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 006 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 000-199 to be reported on Form CT-1 -- Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Repayment Tax Return. Petitioners have never been engaged in any "railroad" activity. Therefore, the information used to assess and lien Petitioners is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud.
  2. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the LIEN on tax year 1993 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G] while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "0"] indicates a taxable class of "0" -- Employee Plans Master File [EMPF]. Petitioner has not, for year 1993, submitted any Employee Plans Master File. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes for Employee Plans Master File -- which is absurd since Petitioner has absolutely no income from any Employee Plans Master File.

  1. ERROR: It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; IMF Specific/Complete Transcripts for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 show fraud in computer entries. Specifically, According to the IMF Specific Transcripts furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1994 [Exhibit A], the Document Locator Number for "LIEN" is 18210-196-00616-5. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 006 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 000-199 -- Form CT-1 Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Repayment Tax Return. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the LIEN on tax year 1994 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G] while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "0"] indicates a taxable class of "0" -- Employee Plans Master File [EMPF]. Petitioner has not, for year 1994, submitted any Employee Plans Master File. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes for Employee Plans Master File -- which is absurd since Petitioner has absolutely no income from any Employee Plans Master File.

  1. ERROR: It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; AMDISA RECORD for 1992 -- see Exhibit I] indicates deliberate fraud in computer entries. Specifically, according to the AMDISA RECORD furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1992 [Exhibit I], the Document Locator Number for Petitioner's tax status is XREF-DLN> 18247-243-00000-4. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 000 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 000-199 -- to be reported on Form CT-1 -- Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Repayment Tax Return.
  2. Petitioners have never been engaged in any "railroad" activity. Therefore, the information used to assess and lien Petitioners is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud.

    Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the AMDISA RECORD [i.e.; Petitioner's tax status] on tax year 1992 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G] while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "0"] indicates a taxable class of  "0" -- Employee Plans Master File [EMPF]. Petitioner has not, for year 1992, submitted any Employee Plans Master File. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes for Employee Plans Master File -- which is absurd since Petitioner has absolutely no income from any Employee Plans Master File.

  1. ERROR:
    1. [Note to Court: Petitioner received this new updated AMDISA RECORD just one day before this filing of this instant Petition].

    It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; AMDISA RECORD for 1992 -- see Exhibit I] indicates deliberate fraud in computer entries. Specifically, According to the AMDISA RECORD furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1992 [Exhibit I], the Document Locator Number for Petitioner's tax status is XREF-DLN> 73277-361-20000-5. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 200 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 200-299 -- NON-TAXABLE. Therefore, the information used to assess and lien Petitioners is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

    ". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the AMDISA RECORD [i.e.; Petitioner's tax status] on tax year 1992 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G] while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "2"] indicates a NON TAXABLE ENTITY. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes -- which he does not.

  2. ERROR:
    1. [Note to Court: Petitioner received this new updated AMDISA RECORD just one day before this filing of this instant Petition]

    It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; AMDISA RECORD for 1993 -- see Exhibit I] indicates deliberate fraud in computer entries. Specifically, According to the AMDISA RECORD furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1993 [Exhibit I], the Document Locator Number for Petitioner's tax status is XREF-DLN> 73277-187-20000-5. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 200 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 200-299 -- NON-TAXABLE. Therefore, the information used to assess and lien Petitioners is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at para. (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the AMDISA RECORD [i.e.; Petitioner's tax status] on tax year 1992 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of  2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G] while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "2"] indicates a NON TAXABLE ENTITY. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes -- which he does not.

  1. ERROR:
    1. [Note to Court: Petitioner received this new updated AMDISA RECORD just one day before this filing of this instant Petition]

    It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; AMDISA RECORD for 1994 -- see Exhibit I] indicates deliberate fraud in computer entries. Specifically, according to the AMDISA RECORD furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1994 [Exhibit I], the Document Locator Number for Petitioner's tax status is XREF-DLN > 73277-187-20000-5. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 200 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 200-299 -- NON-TAXABLE. Therefore, the information used to assess and lien Petitioners is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud. Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the AMDISA RECORD [i.e.; Petitioner's tax status] on tax year 1992 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "2"] indicates a NON TAXABLE ENTITY. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes -- which he does not.

  1. ERROR: It was error for the respondent to ignore Petitioner's pre-petition correspondence, pursuant to the policy published in 5 USC section 552a [Administrative Procedures Act], Publication 594 and Internal Revenue Manual Handbook Policy, P-6-12, require the Commissioner to answer all inquiries from the public. By ignoring such correspondence, an erroneous assessment has been proposed, and unnecessary litigation has been caused. [see Exhibit J]

  2. ERROR: It was error for Respondent to assess Petitioners because, pursuant to Respondent's own records, [i.e.; AMDISA RECORD for 1992 -- see Exhibit I] indicates deliberate fraud in computer entries. Specifically, according to the AMDISA RECORD furnished under the Freedom of Information Act by the IRS, for year 1992 [Exhibit I], the Document Locator Number for Petitioner's tax status is XREF-DLN> 18247-243-00000-4. Using the decoder from IRS Document 6209 provided by the IRS via FOIA request [see Exhibit F], the True Tax Class is 2 -- which is Non-taxable -- according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G]. Additionally, that same DLN indicates a Blocking Series of 000 -- which, according to Internal Revenue Manual 3(10)(72)7.2 [see Exhibit G] is within the Blocking Series of 000-199 -- to be reported on Form CT-1 -- Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Repayment Tax Return.
  3. Petitioners have never been engaged in any "railroad" activity. Therefore, the information used to assess and lien Petitioners is fraudulent and must be abated immediately to avoid criminal prosecution for computer fraud.

    Further, the IR Manual at 33(43)4.3 [see Exhibit H], at paragraph (6)(a), gives specific instructions to Service employees to:

". . . Always use Tax Class 6. The first digit in the blocking series will identify the true tax class."

    Once again, the IRS is attempting to commit computer fraud since in the DLN for the AMDISA RECORD [i.e.; Petitioner's tax status] on tax year 1992 has a third digit [i.e.; true tax class of 2] -- which is non-taxable according to Exhibit G while the blocking series first number [i.e.; "0"] indicates a taxable class of "0" Employee Plans Master File [EMPF]. Petitioner has not, for year 1992, submitted any Employee Plans Master File. This inconsistency has lead to a fraudulent computer entry which classifies Petitioner as a "taxpayer" owing taxes for Employee Plans Master File -- which is absurd since Petitioner has absolutely no income from any Employee Plans Master File.

  1. ERROR: It was error for the respondent to ignore Petitioner's pre-petition correspondence, pursuant to the policy published in 26 USC section 552a [Administrative Procedures Act], Publication 594 and Internal Revenue Manual Handbook Policy, P-6-12, require the Commissioner to answer all inquiries from the public. By ignoring such correspondence, an erroneous assessment has been proposed, and unnecessary litigation has been caused. [see Exhibit J]



RELIEF REQUESTED

  1. Petitioners require:
  1. a redetermination of proposed assessment pursuant to Virgin Islands District Court Rules 71A.1;

  2. for reimbursement of costs pursuant to 26 USC section 7430;

  3. immediate release of Levy/Lien/Seizure of private property/assessment/collection activities executed by IRS Revenue Officers;

  4. return of all monies taken under the guise, sham and subterfuge of "income taxes owed"  i.e.; $40,767.18 [plus interest and penalties] and;

  5. for such other relief as this court deems just and proper. Petitioners, pursuant to procedural and substantive Due Process, understands and agrees to a stay of any and all further collection activities pending the disposition of this Petition by this Honorable Court.


bar

 


Home Page