Petition — Gust v. Commissioner of Taxation & Finance

Rorame Court, UL ae }

FILED ' :

MAR 17 1980

In The | MICHAEL RODAK, JR, CLERK

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1979

79-143

ALAN F. TAYLOR, Petitioner,

US.

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, JOHN J.

CONNORS, E. ALLEN SMITH, AND F. COLBY,

No.

Respondents,

and

DAVID H. GUST, Peitioner

vs.

JOHN J. CONNORS, Respondent,

and

DAVID H. GUST, Petitwner,

US.

RONALD BRADSHAW, JR., Respondent,

and

DAVID H. GUST, Petitioner,

vs.

DAVID FIELDS, Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

ALAN F. TAYLOR DAVID H. GUST

Petitioner, Pro Se Petitioner, Pro Se

242 S. Union Street 399 Parma Center Road

Spencerport, New York 14559 Hilton, New York 14468

(716) 352-0239 (716) 392-9369

The Daily Record ( 5822 Spaulding Law Printing

Rochester, New York ) Syracuse, New York

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion Below . . 2.5.25. c ccc eens

pe EER poe een ote € <a

Question Presented ......... 02. e cece ee eee ee eees

a ir

Reason for Granting the Writ..............000-055

POINT I — Respondents attack our accusatorial system

of criminal WAMAGE. 5. wo bn i ce ee eee eens

POINT II — The Examiner, Respondent Connors herein,

is given NO POWER to enforce compliance or to

impose sanctions for non-compliance, Reisman vs.

Caplin, 375 US 440 at 445 (1964) emphasis added... . . - :

POINT III — Petitioners have been subjected to a

coercive punishment for claiming the privilege which

TTS Bia Oo Nii eae

POINT IV — The state misled the district court by

misstating the reason for the penalty............-.

POINT V — Court below improperly dismissed the

complaint without applying the standards set forth in

Haines vs. Kerner, 404 US 519 at 520. ............-.

mp a eS

ADDENDUM

ADDENDUM 1 — Letter of John J. Connors To David H.

CRE Oe 1 aS a a ee eo

A-2

v1

Page

ADDENDUM 3 — Letter of David H. Gust To John J.

MEO ERS ey Gare re ee ee ees eee L A-3

ADDENDUM 4 — [etter of Attorney General To Judge

ONS ae ane, en) ares Ce eres ya eee A-4

ADDENDUM 5 — Notice and Demand for Payment of

ES Eee ee oe ee ee A-6

mW

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases Page

Couch vs. US. 409 US 332 (1978) .. 2... ee ee eee 4

Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 142 US 547 (1892). .......-- 4

Gardner vs. Broderick, 392 US 273 (1968). .......--+-- 3

Garner vs. US, 424 US 648 (1976)... . eee 3,5

Garrity vs. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967)... ....----- 3

Haines vs. Kerner, 404 US 519 .. 2.6... ee eee 8

Lefkowitz vs. Cunningham, 431 US 273 (1977). ...----- 3,5

Lefkowitz vs. Turley, 414 US 70 (1978)... ...-----++- 3

Malloy vs. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964)... 66-6. ee ee ee eee 4

Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 86S. Ct. 1604 ........-. §

Murphy vs. Waterfront Commission, 378 US 52 (1964)... 4

Riesman vs. Caplin, 375 US 440 (1964). .........5---- 5

Santitationmen vs. Comm’r of Sanitation, 392 US 280

Constitution

United States Constitution

LOSE GIG TEC OORT COR ES 3,4

Codes

NII) cet 5 5 arr et watne ines 2

ee oe ea tuuia x) kaa eeems 2

MN es oe RO BO 2

NY State Tax Law §685(i)... 0... eee eee eee 3, 6, 7

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1979

No.

ALAN F. TAYLOR, Petitioner,

US.

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, JOHN J.

CONNORS, E. ALLEN SMITH, AND F. COLBY,

Respondents,

and

DAVID H. GUST, Peitioner,

vs.

JOHN J. CONNORS, Respondent,

and

DAVID H. GUST, Petitioner,

vs.

RONALD BRADSHAW, JR., Respondent,

| and

DAVID H. GUST, Petitioner,

vs.

DAVID FIELDS, Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

To the Honorable, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the

Supreme Court of the United States:

David H. Gust and Alan F. Taylor, Petitioners herein, pray

that a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgements entered

on December 19, 1979 by the United States Court of Appeals for

the Second Circuit affirming the order of the United States

District Court for the Western District of New York dismissing

the Petitioners’ complaints.

OPINION BELOW

The United States District Court for the Western District of

New York dismissed the Petitioners’ complaints finding as fact,

“plaintiff has in effect failed to file a return”. The United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed without

opinion.

JURISDICTION

Federal jurisdiction was initially invoked under Title 42 USC

1983, and Title 28 USC 1343(3). The United States District Court

for the Western District ordered the complaint dismissed on

May 1, 1979 and the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the

lower court on December 19, 1979 without opinion. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 28 USC 1254.

QUESTION PRESENTED

This Appeal presents the question whether a taxpayer can be

penalized by an administrative agency solely for refusing to

waive his Constitutional Privilege against self-incrimination

regarding requested disclosures that have not been immunized.

Stated another way, may a New York State Tax Examiner

presume fraud and, solely upon that presumption, impose

penalties on the Petitioners for a timely claim of Fifth Amend-

ment Privilege in the absence of any judicial determination of

the validity of that claim? THE PETITIONERS SAY “NO”.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioners filed New York State Income returns for 1977

which Respondent Connors was auditing (see addendum pages A-

1 & 2). Petitioners denied requests for the disclosures sought

citing the Fifth Amendment and Garner vs. US, below, as

authorities for such denial (addendum page A-3). Petitioner Gust

reasserted both his Fifth Amendment Privilege and the

authority for that assertion to Respondents Bradshaw and

Fields, alleged Warrant Agents for the New York State

Department of Taxation and Finance, Compliance Bureau. The

penalty was sustained on the presumption of violation of New

York Tax Law §685(i). Petitioner Taylor's attempts to reassert

his claim and authorities were summarily dismissed by

Respondent Smith and a lien was placed against the Petitioner’s

property.

In the District Court the Respondent’s counsel appeared and

contended that Petitioners had failed to file a return and the

penalties were imposed for that failure. The Court dismissed the

complaints before the error of these contentions was exposed.

The Circuit Court Failed to reach any of the questions presented

and affirmed the lower court without opinion.

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Petitioners have complied with the provisions of this Court as

handed down in the case of Garner vs. US, 424 US 648 (i976),

pertaining to withholding disclosures concurrently with a timely

claim of the privilege. Respondents have punished Petitioners

administratively with stringent penalties for withholding

testimony that has not been immunized. [see Lefkowitz vs.

Turley, 414 US 70 at 78 (1973); Lefkowitz vs. Cunningham, 431

US 273 (1977); Gardner vs. Broderick, 392 US 273 (1968); Garrity

us. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967); Sanitationmen vs. Comm’r of

Sanitation, 392 US 280 (1968); US vs. Sullivan, 274 US 259 (1927);

and Garner vs. US, supra]

POINT I

Respondents attack our accusatorial system of criminal!

justice.

The Fifth Amendment states, in relevant part, “no person ...

shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against

himself”. US Constitution, Amend. V. This simple clause is the

embodiment of centuries of legal evolution and stands today as

one of the fundamental underpinnings of our accusatorial

system of criminal justice. [see Malloy vs. Hogan, 378 US 1 at 7

(1964)]. The privilege is a personal one [Couch vs. US, 409 US 332

at 388 (1973)] and is available to both the accused and witnesses

alike, [Murphy vs. Waterfront Commission, 378 US 52 at 94

(1964), (White, J. concurring), Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 142 US

547 (1892)]. The privilege is more than a mere rule of procedure

and has been held to be a fundamental right, protected against

the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, (Malloy vs.

Hogan, supra). ‘

In this case Respondents have presumed wrongful intent by

the mere assertion of the privilege. They have made a hollow

mockery out of the privilege itself. They have condemned before

any hearings. They have inflicted arbitrary and coercive

punishment before investigation. They have not only punished

Petitioners for the claim of a lawful right, they have abrogated

one of the fundamental underpinnings of the system under

which justice is sought. The issue is not whether Petitioners can

recover from the injury but whether the Respondents have any

jurisdiction over the claim of privilege or any authority under

the law to impose the injury in the first place.

Although Petitioners have claimed the protection the law

allows they have been punished for doing so. This court has

declared:

The privilege against self-incrimination is fulfilled only

when a person is guaranteed the right to remain silent

unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his

own will. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 868. Ct. 1604

While a witness must reply to specific questions and cannot

refuse to provide any information, Respondents have no

authority to impose any penalty for withholding incriminating

disclosures to specific questions. Neither should claimants have

to consider how much it will cost in penalties or sanctions for

claiming the right the law allows. |Sherar vs. Cullen, 41 F2d 945,

(1972) (4th Cir)]

POINT II

The Examiner, Respondent Connors herein, is given NO

POWER to enforce compliance or to impose sanctions for

non-compliance, Reisman vs. Caplin, 375 US 440 at 445 (1964)

emphasis added.

The question of imposing penalties for the assertion of Consti-

tutional Privilege against self-incrimination by the imposition of

sanctions to compel testimony that has not been immunized was

decided by this court as recently as June 13, 1977 in Lefkowitz

vs. Cunningham, 431 US 801. In that case there was a coercive

_ statute that punished one who claimed the privilege. In this case

it is individuals, the Respondents, who deny the Petitioners’

lawful claim of privilege as they might deny a tax deduction or

exemption. Respondents then subject or cause Petitioners to be

subjected to a heavy penalty which must be paid before judicial

review is possible. In every Federal Case cited by the respon-

dents in brief we see, of necessity, the involvement of the

judiciary. But not in this case. Here the Respondents presume to

intrude into the arena of the judiciary; passing on the validity of

a claim of Fifth Amendment Privilege and imposing sanctions in

direct violation of the language of Reisman, supra.

In Garner vs. US, supra, we see the element of timeliness as

essential to maintain the privilege. Garner had made disclosures

and subsequently tried to claim the privilege that had been lost

thereby. Had Garner invoked the privilege to specific questions

on his tax returns, as was done in this case, the tax authorities

could have administratively completed the return or sought

judicial involvement to punish the taxpayer for willfully failing

to file. The identical options are available to the tax authorities

of the State o. New York, however, the Respondents did not

choose to proceed in this lawful manner; but rather converted

Petitioners’ lawful, timely, and valid claim of privilege into a

wrongful act and found Petitioners “guilty” of violating §685(i)

of the State Tax Code. If claiming the privilege could be punished

by imposing a civil penalty as in this case, it would be solely at

the discretion of the opponents of whomever claimed the

privilege as to whether that privilege would be priced out of the

reach of the very citizens whom it was intended to protect.

POINT III

Petitioners have been subjected to a coercive punishment

for claiming the privilege which the law allows.

The privilege against compelled self-incrimination could not

abide any attempt, regardless of its ultimate effectiveness, to

coerce a waiver of the immunity it confers. Sanitation Men vs.

Comm’r of Sanitation, 392 US 280.

In the United States District Court for the Western District of

New York counsel for Warrant Agents David Fields and Ronald

Bradshaw Jr. declared that both names were fictitious (see

addendum pages A-4 & 5). The stated purpose of the deception is,

“to identify particular forms mailed to taxpayers in order to

facilitate handling correspondence when a reply is received”.

Conspicuously absent is any explanation of the official title

“WARRANT AGENT” printed in big bold letters under the

name. The use of this title is not a vain and useless gesture nor

was the impact lost on the Petitioners. It is a critical element of

a coercive scheme to obtain money by means of false pretenses

fabricated to punish Petitioners for refusing to waive the

protection the law allows.

7

Paragraph 3 (addendum page A-5) presents the manner in

which responsibility is evaded by stating that personal service

was not effected. However, the matter of personal service was

not an objection for only nonexistent persons. An attorney, Max

Kuperman, accepts the Complaint and Summons from the

Federal Marshall allowing the matter of lack of personal service

to be raised with any complaint of alleged wrongful conduct.

POINT IV

The state misled the district court by misstating the reason

for the penalty.

In his decision Judge Burke stated, “Thereafter, on August 24,

1978, plaintiff was assessed a $950.00 penalty pursuant to §685(i)

of the Tax Law for failure to file a return (emphasis added).

This argument was advanced by the respondents in their

memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss. The

Notice and Demand for Payment for the assessments against the

Petitioners clearly states “iat the reason for the amounts due is

“Penalty under §685(i) of the tax law for failure to submit in-

formation requested in our previous correspondence. Copy of our

‘letter is enclosed.” (see Addendum page A-6). The letter in

question requests additional information to complete an audit of

petitioners’ tax returns for the year in question. The penalty,

therefore, is administratively imposed for the claim and exercise

of the Fifth Amendment Privilege.

POINT V

Court below improperly dismissed the complaint without

applying the standards set forth in Haines vs. Kerner, 404 US

519 at 520.

This Court in Haines vs. Kerner, supra, has set forth a

standard for this type of dismissal.

We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations

of the Pro Se complaint, which we hold to less stringent

standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers, it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to

relief (citations omitted).

Accordingly although we intimate no view whatever on

the merits of Petitioner’s allegations, we conclude that he

is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. Supra at 520,

521

The Petitioners herein submit that the Courts below erred in not

taking this into account in their decisions.

CONCLUSION

It is not the practice of the Federal Tax authorities to attempt

to apply this type of civil penalty to taxpayers who have in-

terposed claims of Constitutional Privilege, therefore Petitioners

believe that this is a case of first impression before this Court.

The Rights of citizens are fragile things which must be most

carefully protected. Fundamental to this protection is the

separation of the functions of our tripartite government.

Whenever any branch of that government infringes the area of

another branch and is allowed to continue that infringement our

very system is in jeopardy. The most dangerous form of that

infringement is when the Administrative branch encroaches on

the territory of the Judicial branch. When administrative clerks,

or Senior Audit Examiners, may act as “Judge, Jury, and

Executioner” the very lives of the citizens are threatened. It is

this threat to our system of jurisprudence which, Petitioners

submit, requires the intervention of this Court.

For these reasons Petitioners implore this Court to grant them

relief.

Dated March 10, 1980

Respectfully submitted,

ALAN F. TAYLOR DAVID H. GUST

Petitioner, Pro Se Petitioner, Pro Se

242 S. Union Street 399 Parma Center Road

Spencerport, New York 14559 Hilton, New York 14468

(716) 352-0239 (716) 392-9369

ADDENDUM

A-1

ADDENDUM 1 — Letter of John J. Connors

To David H. Gust

New York State Department of

TAXATION and FINANCE

INCOME TAX BUREAU

STATE CAMPUS, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12227

Telephone (518) 457-5533 : AG-2-CNA

File #7-49027040

Tax Year 1977

David H. Gust MAY 26, 1978

399 Parma Ctr. Rd.

Hilton, N.Y. 14468

This refers to the audit of your 1977 New York State income tax

return. In order that we may complete the audit of your return,

it will be necessary for you to submit additional information.

Please submit a complete list of all income earned for 1977. Also,

please submit the New York State copy of any wage and tax

statements you received for 1977.

A reply is requested 30 days, referring to the division and file

number shown above.

ls) JOHN J. CONNORS

John J. Connors

Associate Income Tax Examiner

Audit Group 2

TJC/jtb

A-2

ADDENDUM 2 — Letter of John J. Connors

To Alan F. Taylor

New York State Department of

TAXATION and FINANCE

INCOME TAX BUREAU

STATE CAMPUS, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12227

Telephone (518) 457-5533 AG-2-CNA

File #7-49027054

Tax Year 1977

Alan F. Taylor MAY 26, 1978

242 S. Union St.

Spencerport, N.Y. 14559

This refers to the audit of your 1977 New York State income tax

return. In order that we may complete the audit of your return,

it will be necessary for you to submit additional information.

Please submit a complete list of all income earned during 1977.

In lieu of a list, you may submit a copy of your 1977 Federal

income tax return. Also, please submit copies of any wage and

tax statements you received during 1977.

A reply is requested within 30 days, referring to the division and

file number shown above.

ls) JOHN J. CONNORS

John J. Connors

Associate Income Tax Examiner

Audit Group 2

TJCijtb

A-3

ADDENDUM 3 — Letter of David H. Gust

To John J. Connors

399 Parma Center Rd.

Hilton New York 14468

May 30, 1978

Mr. John J. Connors

Associate Income Tax Examiner

Audit Group 2

Dear Mr. Connors,

Referring to AG-2-CNA, file #7-49027042, I should like to submit

the necessary information within the provisions of the law as it

relates to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Con-

stitution.

In Garner -v- United States, 74-100, Justice Powell, writing the

unanimous opinion of the Court stated:

“If the taxpayer desires the protection of the privilege he

must claim it instead of making disclosures. Any other

rule would deprive the government of its choice between

compelling the evidence from the claimant in exchange

for immunity, and avoiding the burdens of immunization

and obtaining the evidence elsewhere.”

The privilege I claim is waived when I answer the questions on

the return. That is the clear unanimous holding of Garner.

Sincerely,

ls) David H. Gust

A-4

ADDENDUM 4 — Letter of Attorney General

To Judge Burke

STATEOF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

RoBERT ABRAMS ALBANY, N. Y. 12224

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Telephone: (518) 474-5259

February 16, 1979

Re: GUST v. CONNORS

TAYLOR v. STATE TAX COMMISSIONER,

etal. |

Motion Term, February 12, 1979

Honorable Harold P. Burke

United States District Judge

272 United States Court House

100 State Street

Rochester, New York 14614

Dear Judge Burke:

At oral argument, I made reference to a recent decision by the

United States Tax Court, Allen v. Commissioner, which is en-

closed. Although the decision is not directly on point, it may be

informative.

For the record, I repeat my objections to the additional actions

commenced by Mr. Gust:

David H. Gust v. Ronald Bradshaw, Jr.

David H. Gust v. David Fields

These defendants were not personally served, nor could they be.

These names are fictitious and are used by the Tax Compliance

Bureau in its correspondence in order to identify the particular

form mailed and facilitate handling when a reply is received.

Ee

A+ meee on, .

a Ee a

—

A-5

ADDENDUM 4 — Letter of Attorney General

To Judge Burke

To: Honorable Harold P. Burke February 16, 1979

-

It is respectfully requested that the complaints in each of the

actions be dismissed because the Fifth Amendment privilege is

improperly exercised here where there is no criminal in-

vestigation ensuing, merely the duty and responsibility of the

Tax Commission to collect income taxes.

Respectfully yours,

ROBERT ABRAMS

Attorney General

By

ROBERT T. MULI

Assistant Attorney

General

Enc.

ce: Mr. David H. Gust

Mr. Alan F. Taylor

A-6

ADDENDUM 5 —Notice and Demand for

Payment of Income Tax Due

*Q5SUINZ SI Y3LL37 sna 45

Aad3

*35NIGNOdS34¥d0D SNOIAZ¥d BNO NI AQILSINOZA NOTLVNAOINI

A1IW70S OL JZ8NIIVSG O45

Y .NNOWY SiKi AVE W

cJ°C26

LMI wO ONY '3d TwNOUIOOY

- 209 snow)

AV? XV¥i SHL 490 (19579 NOTLD3S YIGNA ALIYNGa &

“SMOYO} SE BIE ING LNNOWY eu) JO) SuOseas ou

nn *ss4 — SGHO03¥ YNOA HOS SDILON SIHL d33y% —

-_~ —

* _30NVI¥2 Oi¥oNN}

Ante

Ofvd AISNOUBUE!

33°CSs o0°0Ss6 | o3° 95°3726

itu % Ig Xvi Wid: ALIWN3o TWW1OL ALT’ AL

a vu" 03° cu”

1S3U31Ni Xvi Wid 22. SSINISNG OIUVHOROW IF}

Xvi SCT TWNOSH3d

‘MO138 3Ni1 SHL NO NMOHS 3NG LNNOWY 3H1L 4O LNSWAYd 4YOs GNVYW30 GNV 3DILON VY SI SIHL

2 9hhT

+

AN NOLTIH

Ow 419 VINVI-65E

1$99 H UITAVC

er ucL eee

oT

——_—

ON INSWSS1.4

9L--2-15

ZL5T

ON 39N3U343u S213

IN3WSS 3647 40 31v0

wV3A HO CCie3-

3NG XV1 3WOONI 4O LNSWAWd ¥O4s GNVW30 ONY 390ILON

LZZZt MOA MON ‘AuRQiy ‘SNdWeED ae