No. 20-620

Anthony Dwayne Williams, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-11-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: constitutional-protections constitutional-rights due-process excise-tax federal-income-tax internal-revenue-code nontaxpayer nontaxpayer-status statutory-notice tax-assessment tax-liability taxpayer
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should the United States Federal Income Tax be viewed differently when determining the assessment for the liability or penalty for a taxpayer versus a nontaxpayer?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1 Should the United States Federal Income Tax be viewed in a different way (or perspective) when determining the assessment for the liability or penalty for a taxpayer’ as opposed to a nontaxpayer”? II. Does the ILR.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B)’ suspend a nontaxpayer’s right or shield’s them from the protection of the U.S. Constitution’? Ill. Is the LR.C. § 6020(b)(1)° a prerequisite and core requirement for determining tax liability, to impose a penalty for a frivolous filing? 126 U.S. Code § 7701(a)(14) TaxpayerThe term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. (Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 2 Long v. Rasmussen 281 F. 236 (D.Mont. 1922) The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws. * * * [Id. 281 F. at 238.] 3 LR.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) Underlying liability The person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability. “ Our constitutional arguments are: “Tf allowed the taxing of Appellants’ earnings even the associated alleged penalties would be a direct tax on “personal property” which is forbidden under U.S. Constitution Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4 without apportionment for us who did not engaged in a federal economic activity that’s subject to a federal tax under the excise laws of the United States.” See this Court’s Doc. No. 19A1067, Anthony Williams’ EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY *** [Page 8.] 526 C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Returns prepared or executed by the Commissioner or other Internal Revenue Officers. [Please see footnote 16]

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-02
Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond filed.
2020-11-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 9, 2020)

Attorneys

Anthony Dewayne Williams, et al.
Anthony Dwayne Williams — Petitioner
Anthony Dwayne Williams — Petitioner
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent