McCoy v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 15 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 12076-78. |
| Citation | 76 T.C. 1027 |
| Parties | NORMAN E. MCCOY and MARY LOUISE MCCOY, PETITIONERS v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petitioners' persistent refusal to answer interrogatories or produce documents held, in the circumstances of this case, not only to constitute a default under Rule 123(a), but also to justify dismissal of the case and entry of judgment against them pursuant to Rules 104(c)(3) and (d), and 123(a) and (b). Norman E. McCoy, pro se.
Marc J. Winter, for the respondent.
The Commissioner determined the following income tax deficiencies and additions to tax against each of the petitioners, husband and wife: 1
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦Additions to tax, I.R.C. 1954 ¦
+------+------------+-----------------------------------------¦
¦Year ¦Deficiency ¦Sec. 6651(a) ¦Sec. 6653(a) ¦Sec. 6654 ¦
+------+------------+--------------+--------------+-----------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+------------+--------------+--------------+-----------¦
¦1973 ¦$971 ¦$171.28 ¦$48.55 ¦$19.68 ¦
+------+------------+--------------+--------------+-----------¦
¦1974 ¦1,424 ¦268.66 ¦71.20 ¦31.68 ¦
+------+------------+--------------+--------------+-----------¦
¦1975 ¦2,648 ¦338.17 ¦132.40 ¦44.82 ¦
+------+------------+--------------+--------------+-----------¦
¦1976 ¦892 ¦80.50 ¦44.60 ¦0 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Petitioners filed a single petition challenging the foregoing determinations.
This case has been the subject of numerous motions, most of which were disposed of prior to May 18, 1981, when the case was calendared for trial in Los Angeles. Petitioners are tax protesters, and in the various materials filed by them they have not squarely addressed the Commissioner's determinations on the merits, but have raised a wide variety of objections based not only upon many provisions of our Constitution, but also upon the Bible, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Northwest Ordinance, the Declaration of Resolves, the Federalist Papers, the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation of 1778, the Declaration of Rights of 1765 and 1774, as well as a host of other unsupported positions including the Statute of Limitations, the Statute of Frauds, Laches, Estoppel, Waiver, and their failure to “earn ‘Dollars' as defined by the U.S. Constitution.” The Commissioner's action has been described as “willful, wanton, and malicious and intentional.” Among other things, they demanded a trial by jury and demanded judgment against the Commissioner in the amount of $5 million “payable in Gold and Silver Coin.”
Two matters relating to motions remained to be acted upon at the time of the May 18, 1981, calendar at Los Angeles. One, dated March 20, 1981, was a motion filed April 6, 1981, on behalf of petitioners, and asked for summary judgment in their favor. It was utterly without merit and will be denied.
The other matter grew out of respondent's motion, filed January 2, 1981, for an order compelling petitioners to respond to respondent's interrogatories and request for the production of documents; this motion was the subject of a hearing on March 20, 1981, in Los Angeles before Judge Nims of this Court. Petitioner Norman E. McCoy appeared on behalf of both petitioners. He persistently objected to answering the interrogatories or producing the requested documents, asserting his rights under the Fifth Amendment, stating that Government counsel had refused to “give [him] a grant of immunity.” Mr. McCoy indicated that the immunity he was seeking was widespread and related to “anything” he may have done. He did not limit his claim to violations of the internal revenue laws. He did not give even a hint as to the possible crimes in respect of which he feared prosecution. Judge Nims made plain that any such sweeping claim under the Fifth Amendment was inadequate, and invited Mr. McCoy to give him some inkling in private in chambers, out of the hearing of Government counsel, so that Judge Nims could determine whether there was any substance to petitioners' Fifth Amendment claim. Mr. McCoy refused. Judge Nims thereupon ordered that:
Petitioners shall on or before April 9, 1981, answer the interrogatories served upon petitioners October 20, 1980 and produce the documents and things in respondent's request attached thereto, or show cause at the Trial Session of the Court scheduled to Commence at 10:00 a.m. on May 18, 1981, in Room 8541, Federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. C.I.R.
...under Tax Ct.R. 104(c)(3) for taxpayers' failure to comply with discovery, including a Rule 72 order to produce documents); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027 (1981) aff'd, 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1983) (default sanction granting fraud penalties under Tax Ct.R. 104(c)(3) where taxpayer viol......
-
May v. C.I.R.
...235, 238 (1984), and the Tax Court issued further warnings that it would begin to dispose of these cases summarily. McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027, 1029-30 (1981), aff'd, 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1983). 5 In an attempt to stem the huge increase in the Tax Court's docket attributable to t......
-
McCrary v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...engaging in scholarly discussion of the issues.‘ See Derksen v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 355, 357, 360 (1985), quoting McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027, 1029-1030 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983). Because of the disputes over the applicability of the additions to tax, we have den......
-
Depew v. U.S.
...v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 1984 WL 15543 (1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1983 WL 14844 (1983); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027, 1981 WL 11241 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1983). As such, we cannot envision any reason to again refute these arguments with somber r......