Philips v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo. 1995-540 (1995)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Scott Philips (plaintiff) received taxable income from multiple sources over the course of several years. Philips never filed tax returns for those years or paid federal taxes on his income. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) issued Philips a notice of deficiency. Philips then filed a document purporting to be a petition to the United States Tax Court contesting the deficiency. Philips’s purported petition failed to comply with the form and content regulations for Tax Court petitions. Additionally, Philips’s purported petition raised arguments long held to be legally spurious, albeit favored by tax protestors, such as the argument that wages are not taxable income and that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional. The Tax Court denied Philips’s purported petition and ordered Philips to amend it. Philips then resubmitted the same document. The IRS filed a motion asking the court both to dismiss the case and to impose sanctions against Philips. Philips submitted another amended complaint, this time complying with the court’s requirements, and the court denied the IRS’s motion to dismiss. At trial, Philips conceded that he had received income on which he had not paid taxes but continued to contest his liability. Philips reraised the arguments made in his original petition, supplementing them with nonsensical, out-of-context invocations of legal jargon. The IRS renewed its motion asking the court to impose sanctions on Philips.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Foley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.