Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Taylor v. Commissioner

SE ,

90-1207

No.

In The

SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES

October Term, 1990

Cecil Ray Taylor, Pro Se

Petitioner,

Vv.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Cecil Ray Taylor

601 West Alton Ave

Independence, MO

64055-1101

w. 913-551-7438

Pro Se

J)

BASIC QUESTIONS

1. At what point does the individual's

United States Constitutional and other

Supreme law of the land rights outweigh

the United State's Executive Branch's

authority to collect taxes?

2. Is it “reasonable” to require a

"private citizen who is under duress and

acting pro se" to meet "aa" the

format and content standards of filing

their initial tax court petition as long

as the initial filing is timely?

3 Is it equitable, reasonable and

uniform to tax American Citizen's income

uSing different tax rates?

4. Is the complexity of the United

States tax code "necessary and proper?"

5. 28 USC 2403(a) may be applicable and

was not earlier certified to Attorney

General.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Basic Questions . : . : : , ; 1

Table of Contents : . ; . , . 1i

Table of Authorities . 7 11

Reference to Court Opinions and files li

Petition for Write of Certiorari . l

Statement of Case ‘ ‘ : , A 2

Argument for Allowance of Writ . , 3

Conclusion ‘ , , 14

8th Circuit oceee of 9/6/90 gee i Al

8th Circuit Order of 10/16/90... A3

Tax Court Order of 3/9/90 i ory ly A4

Tax Court Order of 10/24/89 . .. , AS

Certificate of Service , ; 2 ; Aé

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Tax Court Rule 1

Rule 60 Federal Rules Civil Procedure

26 USC 3800

26 USC 4047

42 USC 1985 & 1986

Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 6

(1987)

G&M Leasing Corp. v. US, Utah 1977, 97

S.Ct. 619, 429 US 338, 50 L.Ed.2d 530,

on remand 560 F.2d 1011

Taylor v. US, et al, &.Ct. file 85-it2s

Taxes-Contract, 1898, 22 Op. Atty. -Gen

192

REFERENCE TO COURT OPINIONS

AND FILES

Reference is made to paragraph 2 of US

Tax Court No. 24999-88 Order of 24

oe ae

October 1989 and all other documents on

file in US S.Ct. docket file 85-1123.

All said documents are incorporated

herein by reference - except paragraph 1

of Tax Court order of 24 October 1989 in

case 24999-88 as that paragraph belongs

to George Kapke, City of Independence,

Missouri to appeal and/or Federal Judge

Elmo B. Hunter to give full faith and

credit pursuant to 28 USC 1737.

- hii -

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JURISDICTION

On October 16, 1990 the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

denied Cecil Taylor's petition for a

rehearing in docket 90-1684. The

parties were the same named in this

petition. The sth Circuit Court of

Appeals' jurisdiction: 26 USC 7482(a).

Jurisdiction of the United States

Supreme Court is invoked pursuant to 28

USC 1254.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

i. Are. I, Sect. &, Ci. 12 7... Gail

be uniform throughout the United

States."

2 Art. i, Sect. 8, Ci. 163 *... Lawes

which shall be necessary and proper ..."

3a Art, IV, Sect. 1: "Full Faith and

Credit shall be given ... to

Judicial Proceedings ..."

4. Art. TAs Sect. 2: "This

Constitution, ... shall be the supreme

law of the land; and the Judges...bound

thereby, ..."

- il-

5. The IV Amendment: "The right of the

people to be secure in their ... papers,

against ureasonable searches ...

shall not be violated."

6. The Vth Amendment states, "nor

deprived of ... property, without due

process of law."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Cecil Taylor filed a timely petition

with the United States Tax Court for Tax

Year 1983. The Tax Court and the 8th

Circuit Court of Appeals’ erroneously

detached jurisdiction of the Tax Court

based upen format of the timely filed

petition. Format is correctable by law.

Congress in 26 USC 4047 definitely

specifies the scope of unlawful acts of

those federal employees involved in tax

matters. Cecil Taylor contends’ that

unlawful acts of a federal officer(s) -

even in civil matters - _ should be

considered as evidence and given weight

by the United States Tax Court pursuant

to Rule 1 of the Tax Court.

- 2-

Both the Tax Court and the 8th Circuit

‘sre found it without merit that Cecil

1 ylor was denied two appeals hearings -

1983 & 1984 tax years. Constitutional

due process, 26 USC 4047 and 42 USC 1985

are not lacking in merit.

Cecil Taylor contends that questions

3 and 4 above are questions’) that

should have been addressed in the

appeals hearings. Said hearings being

denied in violation of 42 USC 1985 - the

questions remain unanswered and

appropriate for appellate determination.

ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWANCE OF WRIT

I. Question No. 1:

For tax year 1983, on April 13, 1986;

Cecil Taylor informed the IRS in writing

of the existence of the "Inited States

Supreme Court Orders in 85-1123. During

the period of April 13, 1986 until the

- 3 -

time of this filing -- the entire

Executive Branch - including Presidents

Reagan and Bush, United States Attorneys

Meese and Thornburg, and Secretary of

Treasury James Baker, Tax Court Judges

Nims and Whalen, et al, have refused to

grant formal full faith and credit to

the published orders of the US Supreme

Court and/or the inferior federal

courts from which 85-1123 was appealled.

When tax year 1983 audit was completed

by the IRS auditor, a Report of

Individual Income Tax Changes was

issued, and Cecil Taylor paid the

deficiency amount of said report. Cecil

Taylor then requested an appeais hearing

on the sole remaining issue: that

being IRS recognitio:r of US S.Ct. 85-

1123 orders to grant an involuntary

conversion of Cecil Taylor's rental

properties at 1232 S. Spring. On

- 4 -

October 15, 1989 - in writing - Robert

Fowler, IRS attorney, acknowledged

that this involuntary deduction should

have been granted for tax year 1983.

However, the IRS is subject only to the

laws that the Tax Court can enforce -

(Case Law - Commissioner v. McCoy, 484

U.S. 3, 6 (1987)) grants full "judicial

power" to the Executive Branch to

violate the United States Constitution

without the punishment legislated by US

Congress in 26 USC 4047 when conducting

IRS tax audits. In Commissioner v.

McCoy, according to the IRS

implementation, the Judicial Branch has

attempted to "legislate" case law that

smacks constitutional court jurisdiction

legislated by US Congress in 26 USC

3800.

Further, G&M Leasing Corp. v. U.S., Utah

i977, 37 $.Ct. 619, 429 U.S. 338, 39

L.Ed.2d 530, on remand 560 F.2d 1011;

says that the 4th Amendment of the

Constitution was intended to elimirate

massive intrusion on privacy undertaken

in collection of taxes. Cecil Taylor

contends the 4th Amendment to the

Constitution is more important than

Commissioner v. McCoy. What says the

Supreme Court to the following: A.

Executive Branch refusal to give full

faith and credit to S.Ct. 85-1123?

B. At the completion of the 1983 tax

year audit on March .1, 1986; an IRS

report of individual income tax changes

of $853.00 was issued and paid. On April

13, 1986 Cecil Taylor asked IRS to give

full faith and credit to S.Ct 85-1123.

In July 86, 1986 Cecil Taylor asked for

an appeals hearing on the involuntary

conversion based upon 85-1123. In

violation of 26 USC 4047 and 42 USC 1985

& 1986; the appeals hearing was denied.

However, acting solely on their own need

to punish Cecil Taylor - on February 4,

1987 the IRS extorted funds from Cecil

Taylor by issuing a report with a

balance due of $3504.46. (This deducted

the $853 previously paid.) The cost to

a US Tax payer to ask the Executive

Branch of Government to recognize the

orders of the Supreme Court is therefor:

$3504.46?

Cc. It is a stipvlated fact that no

IRS computer printout to justify tax

year 84 audit existed except the one of

December 21, 1987. The Tax Court

trial transcript of 24999-88, from line

7 p. 13 to line 7 page 14 documents that

tax year 1984 was done under duress with

no reasonable federal justification.

Is 26 USC now "Superior" to the 4th

Amendment of the United States

Constitution and pursuant to Tax Court

- J =

Rule 1, are IRS acts in violation of the

United States Constitution admissible as

evidence in any federal court?

D. It being undisputed fact that tax

year 84 audit was completed prior to 21

December 1987 and therefor without

reasonable and stipulated sole

justification for said audit, and the

only IRS action after December 21, 1987

and prior to the issuance of the notice

of deficiency for tax year 1984 being

the IRS denial to Cecil Taylor of his

appeals hearing in violation of 26 USC

4047 and 42 USC 1985 & 1986: was there

ever a legal notice of deficiency issued

for tax year 1984 upon which the United

States Tax Court jurisdiction could

attach? Rule 60 of the FRCP does not

allow any case to be vitiated with fraud.

II. Question No. 2:

It is undisputed fact that for tax

- va -

year 1983, Cecil Taylor did file a

timely document with the United States

Tax Court. The question is whether

timeliness attaches the jurisdiction of

the United States Tax Court. Congress

says it does. What says the Supreme

Court?

Note: Cecil Taylor being aware of the

IRS refusal to recognize the United

States Supreme Court concurrently mailed

IRS form 872A to the Supreme Court and

IRS pricr to April 15, 1987. The S.Ct

85-1123 file should contain the copy

sent to the Supreme Court. Just another

bit of fraud by the Executive Branch.

Question 3:. Article 1, section 8,

pee —_

clause 1 of the United States

Constitution requires that Congress tax

"uniformly." In Taxes-Contract, 1898,

22 Op. Atty.Gen 192, it was determined

that a tax is "uniform" when it is

- 9 -

vt

"uniform upon all subjects of the’ same

kind or class." If all United States

citizens are created equal, then

anything other than a flat rate tax is

not a tax applied uniformly to all

United States citizens. (Note: this

does not reach Congress' right to

"exempt." ) This point is based upon the

numerous reports in this country which

state that white males make more’ money

than minorities performing the same job.

Thus, higher taxes for making more money

constitutes reverse discrimination

against white males and is therefor not

"uniform." Cecil Taylor argues that the

flat tax rate should take effect 1

January 1992 to end this "non-uniformity.

Question 4

The experts say the deficit can not be

reduced -without first simplyfiing the

tax codes. Since 1985, Cecil Taylor

- 10 -

has been struggling with the complex tax

codes which contains so many

discretionary calls for IRS that one can

claim they are arbitrary and capricious.

Take this case where IRS calls "paint"

a capitalized deduction and Cecil

Taylor calls paint "maintenance."

The difference seems slight until

several years of "interest" is

discretionarily added. (Note: there is

no equity to IRS discretion as the Tax

Court must side with IRS against the tax

payer. And, short of painting the tax

court judge to see if the paint can be

cleaned off or last 25 years - a tax

payer can not reasonably prove the IRS

wrong.) There are published reports of

major companies filing tax returns nine

(9) feet long. There are also published

reports of how American Corporations are

forced to invest in foreign jobs rather

- l1l-

than American jobs due to the current

tax code. Being in the rental business,

when Americans lose jobs - I lose rent.

In Cecil Taylor's opinion, any tax that

Supports a foreign jobs over US jobs

during a period when there is a _ trade

deficit as we have now -- constitutes

a larger threat to our national

security than any foreign military

threat. The proof is apan's success

where American business investments have

been made more profitable in that

country than in US manufacturing. Japan

now owns more of America than her Armies

were able to capture in an all out war.

What says the Supreme Court as to the

"necessary and proper" complexity of the

current tax code and its parts which aid

and give unreasonable favoritism to

foreign economies over American

businesses, and create excessive

-_ 12 -

litigation for the judiciary, and

allow the Executive Branch to be above

the Judicial Branch by refusing to

recognize orders of the US Supreme

Court?

CONCLUSION

Based upon this fact set and S.Ct. 85-

1123, Cecil Taylor can find no merit to

Article III of the United States

Constitution. No soldier should have to

put their life on the line for a “void"

portion of the United States

Constitution. If the Judicial Branch is

truly as it appears in these two fact

sets -- the oath of office for federal

employees should be modified to say

"except Article III which has no merit."

Cecil Taylor feels the 84 audit was

illegal from its conception in the minds

of those who would punish a private

citizen for asking the Executive Branch

- » _

to recognize the Supreme Court.

$3504.46 is too much to ask a private

citizen to pay as a gratuity to federal

employees to compensate them for their

hurt egos of someone challenging their

illegal acts. Five (5) years of effort

wasted is also too much to pay.

Lastly, a federal employee must report

fraud to a federal judge. This document

does that. Judicial power allows this

Court to enforce all laws of the United

States as Congress never limited the

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in 26

USC 3800. Congress also gave the Tax

Court mandate to abide by the FRCP in

its Rule 1. The Tax Court may not

enforce the laws of the United States

outside its jurisdiction, but it is

mandated to review evidence for

compliance with the laws of the United

States prior to allowing said evidence

- 14 -

to be used within its jurisdiction.

Cecil Taylor lays this unconscionable

fact set of Executive Branch crimes at

the feet of the Supreme Court for its

judicial action.

All relief sought from the 8th Circuit

is included here by reference.

Respectfully submitted,

Cecil Ray Taylor, Pro Se

APPENDIX

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 90-1684

Cecil Ray Taylor, °

Appellant, * Appeai from

Vv. * the United

Commissioner IR, * States Tax

Appellee. > Comet

Taylor's document entitled "Direct and

Collateral Attack on the Orders in the

Above Captioned Case" is overruled.

October 5, 1990

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 90-1684

Cecii Ray Taylor, °

Appellant, * Appeal from

Vv. * the United

Commissioner IR, * States Tax

Appellee. * Court

Cecil Taylor appeals the decision of

the Tax Court upholding the

Commissioner's assessment of a\1984

federal income tax deficiency against

him, and dismissing for lack of

jurisdiction that portion of his

- Al «

petition disputing the assessment of a

1983 federal income tax deficiency.

We reject Taylor's argument that the

Tax Court should have considered the

1983 notice of deficiency. We believe

the Tax Court properly determined that

it lacked jurisdiction to consider

Taylor's challenge to that notice

because Taylor failed to file a proper

petition with the Tax Court within the

required 90-day statutory period. See

26 U.S.C. 6213(a); Andrews v.

Commissioner, 563 F.2d 365, 366 (8th

Cir. 1977) (per curiam).

Taylor does not argue that the Tax

Court erred in assessing the 1984 tax

deficiency.” We lack jurisdiction in

this proceeding to consider Taylor's

arguments that his constitutional rights

were violated by the Commissioner's

employees during the audits, and that

federal officials ignored a United

o A2 «

States Supreme Court order entered in a

separate lawsuit. See Commissioner v.

McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 6 (1987)(per curiam)

(appellate court to determine only

whether Tax Court committed errcr; no

jurisdiction to grant relief beyond

powers of Tax Court). We find no merit

in Taylor's argument that the

Commissioner denied him an

administrative appeal.

Taylor's motions for sanctions and to

supplement the record are denied.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of

the Tax Court.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 90-1684 -

Cecil Ray Taylor, aa

Appellant, * Appeal from

Vv. * the United

Commissioner IR, * States Tax

Appellee. * Court

Petition for rehearing is denied.

October 16, 1990

- A3 -

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CECIL RAY TAYLOR

)

Petitioner, )

Vv. ) No. 24999-88

COMMISSIONER OF IR, )

Respondent. )

DECISION

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court

rendered on January 29, 1990, at the

conclusion of the trial of the above-

entitled case, and incorporating herein

the facts recited in the respondent's

computation as the findings of the

Court, it is

ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there is a

deficiency in income tax due from the

petitioner for the taxable year 1984 in

the amount of $840.00.

Laurence J. Whalen, Judge.

Entered: Mar-9 1990

- Ad «

UNITED STATES '’AX COURT

CECIL RAY TAYLOR )

Petitioner, )

Vv. ) No. 24999-88

COMMISSIONER OF IR, )

Respondent. )

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER

BASED UPON US DISTRICT COURT DOCKETS

AND ORDER OF

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN 85-1123

Comes now petitioner, pursuant to Rule

121, and moves for summary judgment in

favor of the petitioner that:

1. The federal cases listed on the

attached United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri

case dockets exist and are matters of

law. ***(Cecil Taylor does NOT appeal

this paragraph for cause - see Reference

to court opinions and files page - ii.)

2. The April 21, 1986 Order of the

United States Supreme Court exists and

is binding on the United States - a

named party.

3. That Cecil R. Taylor was a pro se

» AS «

participant and a named party in these

court actions requiring him to prepare

all necessary documents for petitions,

discovery, motions, etc. as required by

the local rules of each court.

4. That it is a legal use of an

office to prepare cases for trial and to

do what is necessary to enjoy the rights

afforded all citizens by the United

States Constitution to have a fair

trial.

*** Rubber stamp imprint which reads:

"U.S. TAX COURT, DENIED, OCT 24 1989,

(Signed) Laurence J. Whalen Judge”

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this

Saturday, January 26, 1991, I mailed

postage prepaid, 3 service copies of the

foregoing to:

1. Solicitor General,DOJ, Washington, DC

20530.

2. Fred T. Goldberg, Jr., Office of the

Commissioner, 111ll Constitution Avenue

NW, Washington, DC 20224.

3. President George Bush, The White

House, Washington, DC 20500.

Cecil Ray Taylor

- A6& -