Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Seltzer v. Commissioner

Supreme Court brief1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

~ 97 122 4 NOV 24 1997

No OFFICE OF PHE CLERK

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

October Term, 1997

Richard L. Seltzer, Petitioner

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Richard L. Seltzer, Pro Se

4839 W. Quail Run Drive

New Palestine, Indiana 46163

(317) 861-5182

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Can an Appeals Court be found wrong and biased for failing to take proper and

timely judicial action on factually lawful appeals that are supported by preponder-

ant evidences showing wrongful and biased agency and lower-court actions and

lack of actions on clear issues?

Can an Appeals Court be found wrong and biased for intentionally ignoring bias

shown by lower-court records that intentionally deleted records of trial-transcript

testimony and Administrative Judge's trial decisions in lower Tax Court show ex-

treme deference to respondent and extreme adversity to appellant/petitioner?

Can an Appeals Court be found wrong, judicially biased and unlawful by denying a

timely and proper and lawful rehearing request and En Banc rehearing suggestion

showing its own Appellate Failures in adequate adjudication, impartiality and fair-

ness in addition to belittling improperly appellant’s/petitioner’s appeal?

Can an Appeals Court be found wrong, judicially biased and unlawful by rendering

decision(s) and orders based on deleted, changed and improper records that de-

fer to respondent, lower Tax Court Administrative Judge and against appellant/

petitioner knowing full well, and in advance, such deletions, changes and impropri-

eties exist?

Will the petitioned United States Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari to the Seventh

Circuit Court direct also corrections of deletions, changes and improprieties of

records and trial transcript shown by the factual evidences in this petition? (See

petitioner's comment in regard to the Court’s Part III, Rule 10, Considerations Gov-

ering Review On Certiorari on page 17 below.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

, Pages

CN ini sncicckeciaiasiniareita Ue ae 2

____ ELLER LER. I IR TER LETT SE 3

Constitutional And Statutory Provisions INVOIWVEG...............c:cc:sessssesessssesesseseseesesesenees 3 }

8 fMRI IESE, AUTEN REA NEL RE 4

Objections To Tax-Court Trial ProceedingS..............::ccsscessssseesessssesseseeseseeseensseeveaeens 5

Objections To Seventh Circuit Court on Tax Court...........cccccccsssessseesseesseesseesseessvenses 13 {

Objections On Seventh Circuit Court ProceedingS..............::ccsscscssssessssssesseseseeseseees 16

Concluding Statement Under Court Rule No. 14 (h)...........::ccsccccsessesessssssesesecseeeeseees 22

8 RENNER AS LAA ET CCAR A 23

Index To Appendices

Appendix A. Chronological Record Of Military Service, January 27, 1981.

Appendix B. United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit Order,

Decided August 27, 1997, Appeal From The United States Tax

Court, Case No. 96-3943, Richard L. Seltzer, Petitioner/Appeliant

v. Commissioner Of Intemal Revenue, Respondent/Appeliee.

Appendix C. — United States Tax Court Memorandum Opinion, May 23,1996,

Richard L. and Betty L. Seltzer, Petitioners v. Commissioner Of

Intemal Revenue, Respondent, T.C. Memo. 1996-240.

Appendix D. — United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit Order,

dated October 3, 1997, Denial of Petition For Rehearing And

Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc dated September 10, 1997,

Case No. 96-3943, Richard L. Seltzer, Petitioner-Appeilant v.

Commissioner Of Intemal Revenue, Respondent Appellee

Appendix E. | Employee Annuitant Master Record Printouts For 1983, 1985 and

1987, Office Of Personnel Management Records For Richard L.

Seltzer, New Palestine, Indiana.

Appendix F. ——_ Letters From Office Of Personnel Management, Washington D.C.

dated July 26, 1993 and April 19, 1995. Regarding Military

Service Computations In Annuity.

Appendix G. Department Of The Treasury, intemal Revenue Service Final

Notices On Income Taxes For 1989, 1990, And 1991 For The

Amounts Of $3,810.74, $3,405.46, And $3,186.18 RespectivelyTo

Richard L. And Betty L. Seltzer, New Palestine, Indiana, And

Copies Of Payments For 1990 and 1991 By Bank Checks.

-ii-

Appendix H. Brief Pages 9 And 10 On Certified Old And New Listings In

Petitioner's Brief To The Seventh Circuit Court On January 21,

1997 On Tax Court Errors, Deletions And Changes To The

Record Of Tax Court Memorandum 1996-240 On Tax Court Case

25353-93.

Appendix I. Letters, And Papers On Proceedings With The U.S. Tax Court,

Intemal Revenue Service Appeals Office In Indianapolis, Indiana

And Tax Court Trial in Indianapolis, Indiana Dated Between April

14, 1994 And July 26, 1996.

Appendix J. United States Tax Court Order, August 1, 1996, Richard L. And

Betty L. Seltzer, Petitioners v. Commissioner Of Intemal Revenue,

Respondent, By Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo, Docket

No. 25353-93 On Petitioners’ July 26, 1996 Letter.

Appendix K. Letters From Richard L. And Betty L. Seltzer To The Tax Court On

Tax Court Case 25353-93 Regarding Various Problems In Case

In 1996.

Appendix. | Forms SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statments For 1993

Showing Repayments Of $6,084.60 And $183,60 To SSA In 1993

Including Years 1989, 1991 and 1992 For Richard L. And Betty L.

Seltzer.

Appendix M. — Brief Page On Selizers v. IRS, Tax Court Case No. 25353-93

On Tax Court Trial Witness Testimony And Other Tax Court

Documents And Dollar Amounts.

TABLES OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES PAGES

American Petroleum Institute Enviromental Protection Agency,

C.A. 10, 1976, 540 F. 2d. 1023 (also see C.A. 4, 1976, F.2d. 1188)... eee 2

Binion v. Chater, 108 F. 3d 780, 788 (7th Cir 1997).............ccccccsceseeeeeseseseeseseseeeeneneees 2

Herron v. Shalala, 19 F. 3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994)...........cceccsescesestensseseersseseseeneneens 2

REC. v. Lightsey, C.A.S.C. 1950, 185 F.2d. 167.0... ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssessssnsenes 2

Seltzer v. IRS, 96-3943 F. 7th (7th. Cir. 1997)..........cccceeesteneseeteneseeeneeeees 2,4,18,19

Seltzer v. IRS, 25353-93, Tax Court (1995)...........cccssssecssssessssssesseessseessnesen 3,5,8,11

Seltzer v. OPM, 833 F. 2d 975 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and U.S. Supreme

TI I, PI cicscietascnessenseccckencavscsbescbescvscvcnsonssessvsssensesescssnesees 2,4

Seltzer v. OPM, 980 F. 2d 744 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and U.S.

Supreme Court No. 92-1565 (Jan 14, 1993)...........c.scessessesesesesesssssesssssssesseseeseeees 2,4

Travis v. Sullivan, 985 F. 2d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 1993)..........ccesesssseseseseseeeseseeeneeeenees 2

Ee eI, BOGUS, 111, TIS TBD. 0a coscscessesseresesssecvsnssessesevsssecsscnssscevenseezees 15

ill

S'YATUTES

inate caps tnnaag nnannnnasnetieeceibaniabavanbuicid 2

5 St ct RE PAE ACT TT ARETE 3

Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1254(1) and 1651.......... 5 siieniielecucchauaaenuneien 3

OTHERS

U.S. Constitution Amendents |, IV And V..........cccccccccssessesesessesessssessssesesesesesseseeseneess 3

a I oss scrsnssenensnsnqnoensnsngsasovsvenssbcoucenonsnsnden 3

IRS Code 4027-3 to 4027-6, Sec. 72(C)-(Q)........cccscessesessssesesseseeseseeseens 7,10,15,16,18

PRS COMI SOURIS FINNS FI sca cocccceconcosncoceorccpunsennsonsescessocscsrescesncesoysens 3

U.S. Supreme Court Part Ill, Jurisdiction On Writ Of Certiorari, Rule No. 10,

Considerations Goveming Review On Certiorari, Subpar. (€)-(C)..........:.ccccccecessesseeeeees 17

-iy-

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

October Term, 1997

Richard L. Seltzer, Petitioner

Commissioner, Intemal Revenue Service, Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner respectfully asks the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari becuase of

wrong, judicially biased and unlawful decisions, orders and failures to adjudicate fac-

tual evidences of record that support petitioner's appeals. Further, the appeals court

affirmed and upheld the lower Tax Court's intentional and calculated (1) deletions of 69

pages of Trial-testimony transcript that supported petitioner's appeals, (2) changes,

deletions and erroneous entries made to respondent's records adversely affecting

petitioner;s appeals and (3) allowing deletions and extractions of entire lines of evi-

dences without articulation or reasoning by the Special Trial Judge in rejecting such

contrary evidences. These allowances of Tax-Court failures to provide meaningful

and lawful judicial review and articulation of reasons entire lines of petitioner's contrary

evidences were rejected, is a major deviance by the Seventh Circuit Court from its past

decisions in cases. This Seventh Circuit Court has had a consistent and long-standing

firm judicial commitment to decisive recognittion that meaningful and lawful appellate

judicial review require Adminstrative Law Judges to articulate reasons for rejecting

entire lines of evidences so the articulation allows the court to trace the path of lower

Court's reasonings in rejecting contrary evidences. (1) However, in petitioner's case

(Appellate No. 96-3943) the Seventh Circuit denied continuing objections of record

to the Tax Court and itself on improper deletions of evidences and military services

credits. See Appendix A. The Seventh Circuit Court Order dated August 27, 1997 (not

to be cited) is Appendix B. Rehearing petition includes specific charges made to the

Seventh Circuit. In petitioner's Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En

Banc dated September 8, 1997 charges against the court are factually supported. The

U.S. Tax Court Memorandum Opinion dated May 23, 1996 is Appendix C. This Sev-

enth Circuit Court has unlawfully with the purpose of bias on behalf of the Tax Court and

respondent, has abridged its own mandated responsibilities. (1) Petitioner charges his

Constitutional rights to a fair and impartial court proceeding and basic justice have been )

severly abused by both courts as decisions, orders and opinions in Appendices B, C,

and D clearly show. (2) Further, issues presented in this Petition for Writ of Certiorari

are unresolved and unadjudicated issues in prior Cases Seltzer v. OPM, 833 F. 2d 975 |

(Fed. Cir. 1987), Sup. Ct. No. 87-6715 (Feb. 27, 1988) and 980 F. 2d 744 (Fed. Cir.

1992), Sup. Ct. Co. 92-1565 (Jan. 14, 1993) as prior Writs of Certiorari.

Title 5 U.S.C., Section 706 (note 26). Judicial Review—Agencies Generally.

Administrative action is conclusive on review unless such action is not in ac

cordance with law, is unsupported by competent, material and substantial

evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious. R.F.C. v. Lightsey, C.A.S.C. 1950, 185

F. 2d 167.

OPINIONS BELOW

Entered/Reported as United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Order dated August 27, 1997 that affirms the United States Tax Court, No. 96-3943,

Richard L. Seltzer, Petitioner-Appellant v. Commissioner of intemal Revenue, Respon-

dent-Appeliee. Appears in Appendix B, noted above. Entered/Reported as United

States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Order denied Petition for Rehearing and

declined Suggestion for En Banc Rehearing from Petitioner-Appellant dated October 3,

1997, Richard L. Seltzer, Petitioner-Appellant v. Commissioner of Intemal Revenue on

Appeal from the United States Tax Court, No. 96-3943. Appears as Appendix D. En-

“Ti) See Herron v. Shalala, 19 F. 3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994); Binion v. Chater,

108 F. 3d 780, 788 (7th Cir. 1997) and Travis v. Sullivan, 985 F. 2d 919,

924 (7th Cir. 1993).

(2) — Title 5U.S.C., Section 706 (note 415). Judicial Review-Agencies Gener

ally. Grounds on which agency acted must be clearly disclosed in, and sus

tained by the record, and agency must make plain its course of inquiry, its

analysis and its reasoning. American Petroleum Institute v.Enviromental

ProtectionAgency, C.A. 10, 1976, 540 F. 2d 1023 (also see C.A. 4, 1976, 540

F. 2d 1188).:

bseneseneinnnsiahtineniinnaiaibieiianiiiitaiia nical

tered/Repoited as MEMORANDUM OPINION from United States Tax Court dated May

23, 1996 as T.C. Memo. 1996-240, Docket No. 25353-93, Richard L. and Betty L.

Seltzer Petitioners v. Commissioner of Intemal Revenue, Respondent. Appears at

Appendix C, noted above.

JURISDICTION

Statutory basis for jurisdiction by the Seventh Circuit Court are IRS Codes Sections

7482(b) and 7483 and Title 5 U.S. Code 7703(a)(1) and (b)(1). Jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court is invoked under Title 28 United States Code, Section 1254(1) and

Section 1651, Issuance of Writs. Judicial Power of the Supreme Court in this Petition

for a Writ of Certiorari is also in law and equity under Section 2, Article III, Constitution of

the United States because petitioner claims his Constitutional Rights have also been

unlawtully denied, curtailed and adversely abused by both Seventh Circuit and Tax

Courts as specified above with Appendices. Constitutional Amendent |, Redress of

Grievances; Amendent IV, Rights Against Unreasonable Seizures and Amendment V,

Deprival of Property Without Due Process and Compensation for Public Use. Specifi-

cally these Amendments grants petitioner the following:

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Amendment |: The right of petitioner to have free and unrestricted right to petition the

govemment for redress of grievances. Petitioner was adversely restricted by unlawful

and intentional deletions and changes to facts and case records by both lower courts.

Amendment IV: The right of petitioner to be secure in papers and effects against unrea-

sonable seizures. Petitioner's Military Service Reserve time totalling 7’ months and 6

days was unlawfully reduced from Civil Service Retirement annuity by Office of Person-

nel Management between 1975 and 1983; a deletion of reemployment military ben-

efits stated as overpayment collections. Other overpayment collections associated

with these 216 days of military service are also noted in this petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Amendment V: Petitioner should not have been deprived of property as annuity in-

come without due process nor shall such property be in public use without compensa-

tion. Military Reserve Service days totalling 216 were reduced for repayments to the

Civil Service Retirement Act funds for Treasury public use. Court Orders and Orders of

record by the Merit Systmens Protection Board to refund these unlawful overpayments

in 1989, 1990 and 1991 were neither acknowledged nor complied with by Office of

Personne! Management and those repayments are in petitioned Writ of Certiorar.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 1983, 1985 and 1987 petitioner's Military Service of 7 months 6 days (216 days) had

been deleted from the intial 1974-1975 annuity compensations and the Employee An-

nuitant Master Record Printouts dated November 23, 1983, May 8, 1985 and April 23,

1987. Then, instead only 11 years of full-time active duty was included in respective

total-service periods of 22-00 years (1983), 21-11 (1985), and 21-11 (1987). See Ap-

pendix E-1 to E-3. Further, during proceeding of prior case the Office of Personne!

Management bluntly lies in claiming without any evidence whatever the “Total military

service credited is 11 years 7 months and 6 days.” in Appendix F-1 letter dated July 26,

1993 and “This includes 11 years 7 months 6 days of military service.” in Appendix F-

2 letter dated April 19, 1985. Further these two letters also show unfounded and unlaw-

ful $27.00 and $37.00 monthly overpayment collections made in 1989, 1990 and 1991

from annuity that were ordered refunded by both the Merit Systems Protection Board

and the Courts during those years, as unfounded Military Service Social Security Ben-

efits in annuity. Additional monthly arbitrary overpayment collections from annuaity

shown on Appendices E-1 to E-3 that were made without basis, evidences or due

process beginning in 1983 total an additional overpayment repayment total of $139.69

that are also included as issues in this petiton for Writ of Certiorari. All these facts were

extensive in cases Seltzer v. OPM, 980 F. 2d 744 (Fed. Cir. 1992) as United States

Supreme Court Docket No. 92-1565; earlier prior case for these issues through 1986 to

1988 noted on page 2 above as Seltzer v. OPM, 833 F. 2d 975(Fed. Cir. 1987), Cert.

denied, 486 U.S. 1024 (1988). All overpayment repayments made by petitioner to the

Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRA) fund were neither refunded nor recomputed into

annuity between 1986 and 1991, the last year in this petition on present case with the

Commissioner, Intemal Revenue Service as respondent.

Present Appellate Court Case No. 96-3943 for review of records in petitioned Writ of

Certiorari was a petition to the Seventh Circuit Court for review of decisions of the U.S.

Tax Court shown in Appendix C. Petitioner agrees-with income amounts but objects

and disagrees with the Tax Court's Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo’s opinions

sustaining respondent's IRS determinations of deficiencies for 1989, 1990 and 1991 in

respective amounts of $1,980, $2,032 and $2,332. Petitioner has posted bonded

amounts to the IRS including excessive penalties and interest of increased respective

totals of $3,922.05 (paid 10-03-97), $3,405.46 (paid 4-17-97), and $3,1816.18 (paid 4

17-97). Reasons were threats against petitioner and deceased wife shown on Appen-

dix G-1, G-2, G-3 to take paychecks, bank accounts, automobiles or other property.

The 1989 supposed deficiency was on a permanent hold from date of July 17, 1997 as

were also the years 1990 and 1991. See Appendix G-1. | was to do nothing on 1989

per the Cincinnati IRS office; then the October threat on 1989 came again so | paid it

under duress. Appendix C decisions by Judge Carluzzo is not the most important ev-

“.

iinet ll

idence in this case. In the Tax Court trial of February 16, 1997, there were literally

rampant biased, unfair, unlawful and non-judicial issues occurring often, during trial that

are clearly shown in the true Trial Transcript which had 69 pages deleted by the Justice

Department Counsel before submission to the Seventh Circuit Court as an imperfect

and biased record totally on behalf of respondent. All pages of the 69 deleted from the

record to the Seventh Circuit Court supported petitioner's arguments with factual evi-

dences. First below petitioner excerpts actual objections to the Tax Court dated April

11, 1995 in Tax Court Trail on Case Docket No. 25353-93. Next are also the objections

made to the Seventh Circuit Court in Brief dated January 21, 1997 and Rehearing

Petition dated September 8, 1997.

OBJECTIONS TO TAX COURT TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

The following, indented, single-spaced texts are exact quotations from debriefed objec-

tions dated April 11, 1995 from petitioner to the Tax Court regarding Trial Proceedings

dated February 16, 1995. Page number references are pages in Trial Transcript which

originally had 95 pages of recorded text but respondent's counsel (Justice

Department)destroyed by eliminating 69 pages that supported petitioner's charges in

testimony as noted below. The Seventh Circuit Court had no transcript evidence for

petitioner therefore decisions and opinions and order of August 27, 1997 were based

upon inadequate facts and evidences and deferred greatly to respondent as biased,

unfair and unlawful adjudication by this court. See Appendix B which petitioner objects

to below (numbered for convenience).

1. The facts in the proceedings transcript of this trial show that petitioner's Cross-

examination and questions to hostile witness Thomas W. Smith representing

the Office of Personnel Management, Washington D.C. were several times

unduly restricted and curtailed by the Court for an apparent reson. As a

result, petitioner's facts of record in evidential documents and stipulated is

sues for argument were not presented on the record and petitioner's rights of

both due process and a fair and unbiased trial were adversely prevented by

this Court. In support of petitioner's claims of improper deference to the re

spondent(IRS) during this trial are these transcript records; statements tran

scribed in court during trial:

a. Page7. Court: “And you will be entitled to examine Mr. Lawson's witnesses

should he call any.” (Only one was anticipated from OPM).

b. Page 75. Court: “And | will not allow you to examine this witness for the

purpose of acquiring any information with respect to your other proceedings.

Your questions will be limited —to the disputes here in the Tax Court.”

c. Page 83. Court: “We're not going to have the witness do math on the

stand. Whatever the difference is can be figured out from the record.” (differ-

ence between $17,016 and $13,661.74).

Page 85. Court: “Mr. Seltzer, | will not allow you to get into your dispute

with OPM other than as it relates to your tax situations for the ‘89, ‘90, and

again ‘91.” (on Smith's knowledge of case).

Page 87. Court: “Well, again, Mr. Seltzer, and | understand that Mr. Lawson

made an inquiry with respect to the $7200. Where are you headed? Do you

have a specific point?”

Page 91. Court: “I have it (judicial authority and jurisdiction) with respect to

your tax controversy, Mr. Seltzer. | do not have it with respect to your contro-

versy with OPM.”

(Anew Note: All pages above were included in 69 pages destroyed and/or

elimated from Trial Ti ipt by Justice for t be

fore “true copy” of transcript is sent on December 18, 1996 to Sev

enth Circuit Court, as petitioner noted on page 5 above.)

First and foremost are the facts in all record both in this trial, in the Court

Petition in November 1993, in the Trial Memorandum of February 13, 1995, in

the Conference notes of January 17, 1995 and all prior IRS correspondence

back to 1992, the petitioners have consistently and strongly emphasized that

the issues now before the Court were issues resulting solely from OPM's

unfounded and illegal overpayment collections, offsets, reductions and com

putations between 1974 and 1993, between 1983 and 1995 and between

1986 and 1995. Further, the IRS respondent (Mr. Lawson and the counsel's

office) had full and total knowledge of these issues, as well as their know-

edge of all petitioners’ arguments or the “statute of limitations issues”, contra

dicting Mr. Lawson's answer to the Court on transcript page 55: “No, your

Honor. The first time | heard about the statute of limitations arguments was

approximately 12 to 13 days ago.”

In this regard of adversities and lack of due process faced by petitioners in this

trial, many answers to the Court on direct and cross-examination questions

were erroneous at best and untruthful at worst with foregone knowledge, made

by witness, and respondent (counsel Lawson). Answers are as follows:

Respondent is wrong in saying the MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board)

January 3, 1990 decision is one of many and “this was ultimately resolved in

a later hearing. (transcript pages 36-37); the $7,291, $73,827, and military

issues. The February 12, 1993 U.S. Supreme Court Petition (copies to the

Court and respondent) shows the issues of $7,291, $27.00 offset and $1,418

were continued into 1991 (Dec. 31, 1991 order) and into 1992 (Apr. 23, 1992

order) with MSPB continuing to order refunds. Petitioner's challenge and

appeal on OPM's (Office of Personnel Management) 1986 recalculations and

overpayment collections are now in MSPB under CH-0831-0675-I-1. Tran-

script pages 86-88 shows witness (Smith) fully aware of these facts.

Mr. Smith is wrong in his assertions on transcript page 71 that petitioner

Seltzer could not have contributions to annuity at time of retirement dated

September 1, 1974. The Federal Civil Service Retirement Law cited in Civil

Service Commission (MSPB) Pamphlet No. 18, states: “These contributions

may be made only while the employee is in the service, or at the time when

his annuity claim is actually being adjuicated by the Civil Service Commis-

sion.” Adjudicated reductions in 1974-1983, 1983-1986, and 1986-1995 were

contributions, deposits or collections on overpayments back into the Civil Ser-

vice retirement Fund (CSRF); considered by IRS as NON-CASH INVEST

MENTS AND NON TAXABLE AS REFUNDS. IRS Codes 4027 Section (72e);

see below.

More disturbing are unthruths in Mr. Smith's answers. He says on transcript

page 85 to the Court; “The figures that are on the 1989 summary of payments

on his notices of annuity adjustment do reflect all the different catagories that

are shown on the summary.” (on the W2P Form in the Court's question).

Court “O-kay. So the summary would in fact, be exactly that, a summary of

what took place during the year.” THE WITNESS (Smith): “Yes”. This isn't

true. The 1989 Notice of Annuity Adjustment for payment dated 01/01/89

shows new status in gross monthly annuity as $1,089.00. Total for 1989 on

this notice received by petioners on December 12, 1988, is to be $13,068.00

and net is $868.56 X 12 months=$10,422.72, not the total $11,111.28

shown on respondent's Trial Exhibit |.

Between 1983 and 1988 these “differences” between the W2PAs and the RI

20-53 Forms totalled for the years is $12,225.00. Even respondent's figure

camed through 1991 totals on page 4 of respondent's Trial Memorandum is

$13,844.90. In effect, respondent's own witness Smith contradicts these

amounts on transcript page 85 to the Court.

Disturbing also is the untruth of htis same witness (Smith) to the Court as

Stated on Transcript page 86: “Yes, initially the Board (MSPB) instructed us to

retum the total of these deductions (the $7,291) to him (Seltzer)”. Court:

“What was the ultimate disposition of that $7,291, the refund?” Answer. “A

so we did not refund the money.” There was not an MSPB recission of the

$7,291.00 issue of overpayment collections for 36 months at $202.52 monthly

through 1989. OPM ignored ongoing MSPB and Federal Court orders on

refunds of the $7,291 and $27 issues until two partial payments were made of

$2,060 in 1992 and $1,133 in 1993, both of which were again included in

Gross Income as reported to IRS on the W2PA forms for years.

THESE WERE REFUNDED PARTIAL AMOUNTS ON TOTALS COLLECTED,

OFFSET AND REDUCED FROM ANNUITIES AS FOLLOWS (cited in Con-

ference-Matters Brief dated January 17, 1995 and Tax Court Trial Memoran-

a. 3

dum dated February 13, 1995):

(1). $12,789 (incl. 7,291, 4,080, 1,418) Partial 2, 060 (1992).

(2). $13,712 (27.00 and 37.00 issues) Partial $1,033 (1993).

(3). $6,268 (Military, SSA Benefits repaid).

(4). $30,000 216 days, $330.00 approved/credited military service

credits deducted from annuity and contributeed/deposited toward

the Civil Service Annuity (CSRA) funds.

Contradicting witness Smith's testimony, there are continuing repayments,

contributions. or whatever name in

19901 and 1991 and still continuing in 1995. See transcript page 71. The

Court has heard respondents claim that tax years cited above, especially

1983 and 1986 through 1995, are irrevelant excerpt for 1989, 1990 and 1991

tax years. The Court has admitted petitioners’ Exhibit No. 10 “subject to

conditional established the consider-

ation of this case.” Obviously respondent would prefer 1989-1991 as the only

tax years in dispute but respondent (counsel Lawson) and the IRS were consis-

tently and often shown indisputable evidences cited above that the 1989-

1991 Taxable Years resulted from unlawful OPM/Employer actions in 1983-

1986 from both the Gross and Net Taxable annuity amounts and resulted in

MSPB and between 1984 and 1992.

Petitioners have another issue of contention with this Court that is critical to

evidences and procedures of admissions of documents. The petitioners have

been exceedingly diligent in serving both the Court and respondent evidential

documents in support of arguments and claims since Petition to this Court in

November 1993. Further, the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedures

are in hand and followed since receipt from the Court in February 1994 of

commencement of case 25353-93 on November 24, 1993, Petition date. See

court's Rules on filing documents (Rules 22-23) and Service of Papers (Rule

21); Adducement of Evidences (Rule 149) and particularly Rules of Evidences

(Rule 143), and as they concem Expert Witness Reports (143(f)) which were

neither complied with by the respondent nor the Court. Petitioners had not

received the required report by the respondent's witness Smith nor the re-

quired copy of expert-witness report(s) from respondent, before the trial call

on February 13, 1995. Petitioners therefore ask the Court to strike; deciare

moot, all testimony of witness Thomas W. Smith as excludable under Rule

143(f). Further, petitioners see nothing in published Tax-Court Rules that limit

petitioners access to a witness as done by this Court or limit evidences and

documents properly filed, served and prepared uder the Tax-Court’s Rules as

further done so by this Court. To wit:

A OE nN aa

(1) COURT: “The only ting | will consider in resolving this case is the

evidence that is submitted during this trial.” (In transcript pages 5

through 8. Both petitioners’ stipulations of facts with Exhibits, and

the Trial-Memorandum exhibits were accepted by respondent but

refused as evidences by this Court, after accepting respondent's

Exhibits).

(2) COURT: “Likewise, the trial memorandum which | filed this

moming also does not constitute evidence, these are merely the

statements of the parties’ positions. Okay?” (transcript page 11).

(3) COURT: “Okay. Well Mr. Seltzer, as | indicated a little bit earlier

the trial memorandum is not evidence.” (transcript 19).

(4) COURT: “Let me again remind you (to petitioner) that merely

because a document was attached or annexed to your trial memo-

randum it is not evidence in the case. If you want a specific docu-

ment to be considered then you must make an offer of that docu-

ment fromaily during the course of this proceeding.” (transcript page

21). (The word “formally” was not explained).

(5) COURT: “Again even if it was a part of that memorandum (the

Trial Memo.), Mr. Seltzer, it’s not in the record.” (transcript page 22).

There were other limitations placed upon petitioners’ efforts to introduce

evidence and facts supporting arguments but the Court, on transcript pages

44 and 45 stated there was nothing in petitioners’ stipulations that could

not be presented in a brief. To wit:

(1) COURT: “As a matter of fact this is very much in the nature of

a brief.” (transcript page 45).

(2) COURT: “The other references and the arguments and your

responses to Respondent's position and your position with re-

spect to the treatment of these amounts and the authority for

that position are all matters that you can present appropriately

to the Court on Brief.” Transcript pages 43 to 45 show petitioner's

(Seltzer’s) protest on lack of timeliness.

OPM Office has consistently ignored both MSPB and Court orders to refund

and rectify the unfouded offsets, reductions in annuity and “overpayment”

collections made throughout these years (1974 to 1994). Petitioners’ Exhib

its 1 through 9 are documents recapping these issues and problems since

1983 that are retroactive to 1974 income and later taxable income years.

These issues still continue unresolved, but in all respects these issues of

contention with OPM are VERY COMPLEX and same issues now in the Tax

-9-

Court and within the Court's jurisdiction. The Tax Court is wrong (transcript

page 85) in limiting 1989-1991 as one, single issue package when 36 monthsof

$202.52 illegal and unfounded overpayment collections partially refunded

(1992), began in 1986 and ended in 1989 and other annuity reductions are

still hidden in 1983 through 1994 taxable income as refunds; hidden as TWICE-

TAXED INCOME AMOUNTS.

5. Petitioners have presented to the Court legal authorities drawn solely from

the IRS Commissioner's own Codes, Rules, Requiations and Instructions.

These legal authorities, particulary those cited by petitioners from IRS Code |

4027-3 through 4027-6 and specifically Sections 72(d) through 72(g) have {

been included as exhibits and references in the January 17, 1995 Confer-

ence Matters Brief given this Court; also in Petitioners’ Stipulations Brief

dated February 16, 1995 (REFUSED BY THE COURT, that all IRS Legal

Authorities treats certain Federal Plans on Annuities and Contracts specifi-

cally under IRS Code Section 72 totally as NON-CASH BASIS PLANS THAT

COVER FULLY THE CONSIDERATIONS, DEPOSITS, CONTRIBUTIONS

(AND REPAYMENTS) INTO THE PLANS AND the REFUNDS, ALLOCA-

TIONS, RECEIPTS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM BOTH THE PLAN AND PLAN

INCOME.

a Respondent, on transcript pages 9 and 10 tells the Court; "this is not a

complex case and petitioner Seltzer is a cash-basis taxpayer.”

b. | The Court stated in reply; “—in reviewing the trial memorandum | am having a

hard time—or had a hard time figuring out what the case was all about.”

Petitioners in Trial Memorandum (not allowed as evidence) told the Court and

respondent (again) that IRS Code 4027 Section 72 (1995) is lawful authority

that covers petitioners wholly as Federal Contract Annuitants. (transcript page

14). Section 72(e) (1995 IRC Code reference) is specific in excluding peti-

tioners from the “cash-basis” yearly definition cited by respondent. (transcript

page 9). Special IRC Rules for Plan Applications;

(1) Section 72(e) of Sections 72(c) through (h), states;

“(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), General Rule, the following shall be treated

as amounts not received as an annuity: (A) any amount received, whether in

a single sum or otherwise, under a contract in full discharge of the obligation

under the contract which is in the nature of a REFUND OF THE CONSIDER-

ATION PAID—. See (E) (1) Full Refunds—. (underlinings parentheses added)

“Any amount to which this subsection applies (A) (E) if received on or after the

-10-

eenenieinel

annuity starting date shall NOT BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME to the

extent allocable to the investment in the contract."(ii) the investment in the

contract AT SUCH TIME. (underlinings, capitalizations added)

Therefore, in total contradiction of the “yearly cash-basis” status claimed by

respondent, petitioners’ unfounded offsets, unlawful overpayment collections

and annuity reductions by OPM as MSPB/FEDERAL COURT-ORDERED

REFUNDS are deductible from Gross INCOME at time refund is ordered.

See petitioners’ Exhibit 3 where all refundable amounts claimed; 7, 291,

4,080, 1, 418, 27 and 37 (military SSA amounts) and $330.00 monthly military

service credits totalling $30,000.00 (1974-1994) are shown as Contractual

Refunds still owed to petitioners, less partial payments by OPM in 1992 and

1993. As the Tax-Court should concur in such lawful orders and approve

petitioners’ non-cash and deductible REFUNDS of $10,997.84, $10,242.00

and $10,672.00 for 1989, 1990 and 1991 respectively.

Petitioners have been ill-served during the Tax-Court trial for all reasons given

above. The unwarranted incident of respondent advising the Court that wit-

ness Smith “had a plane to catch very soon” further curtailed any cross-ex-

amination when the Court excused this witness and wished him “Good luck in

Catching your plane.” (transcript page 88). Abrupt departure of witness Smith

left unexamined (transcript pages 90 to 92) issues pertinent to this trial that

were in Discovery Letters (to OPM) ofNovember 28, 1994 and January 9,

1995 (Encl. 1). Relevancy of 1983-1994 documents was raised by respon-

dent even though witness Smith testified that OPM “~did make a variety of

deductions over time.” Petitioner had every right to cross-examine this wit-

ness on such varieties beginning in the year 1983. (transcript page 82). The

periods and years between 1983 and 1994 ARE TOTALLY RELEVANT IN

(Tax-Court) CASE 25353-93.

Also, this Court allowed “math” (mathematics) to be discussed at great length

by witness, Court and respondent (transcript pages 23 through 32). Yet

petitioner's one instance of cross-examination on “math” (transcript page 82)

on difference between 13,661.74 and 17,016 was cut short by the Court:

“We're not going to have the witness do math on the stand. Whatever the

difference is can be figured our from the record.” After trial, “fiqured out” by

who? And for what purpose if not now evidence? Respondent Lawson was

allowed extensive examination of this hostile witness on contributions, pay-

ments, repayments, overpayments and “math” as shown on transcript pages69

through 74. Petitioners were DENIED cross. (3).

9. Petitioners charge this Tax Court Special Trial Judge deferred unfairly against

petitioners, with admonishments, limitations and curtailments of both eviden-

tial documents and testimony from both respondent and hostile-witness Smith.

Testimony from witness Smith on mathematical correctness and computa-

tions of his statement that OPM was preparing an explanation on petitioners

November 1994 through January 1995 Discovery Letters (Encl. 1) was cnti-

Cal for petitioners’ case. Seemingly this trial was lengthy and time consuming

as a reason for haste. As this was a “regular case” as noted by the Court, a

continuance of the case and/or an ovemight stay by witness Smith would

have been proper instead of his need “to catch his plane.” More justified

should have been a Court ordered withdrawal of IRS deficiencies/refunds

shown above.(3)

(End of Tax-Court Trial Objections)

Following objections are exact quotations from both the petitioner's Briefing to Seventh

Circuit Court (Jan. 21, 1997) and his Petition for Rehearing and En Banc Suggestion

(Sept. 8, 1997) which are the on-going results of trying toget this court to review both

trial records detailed above, and the additional issues with the Tax Court subsequent to

the trial. These are chosen for brevity and necessity of clarification of the complexities

manifest in this case now before the Spureme Court in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

The records of this case history between the first meetings with the Regional IRS em-

ployees in May 1992 on tax years 1989, 1990 and 1991 have proceeded uninter-

rupted to the present date, a period of five and one-half (5 1/2) years. IRS and lower-

Court actions, show the errors, dishonesties and toatl disregard for both Administrative

and Judicial lawful proceedings, including calculated abuse of records. See Appendix

H-1 and H-2. Petitioner has a concem a Supreme Court approval of this Petition for

Writ of Certiorari to the Seventh Circuit Court will result in abused records lacking sup-

port for all of petitioner's claims against respondent, the Tax Court and the Seventh

Circuit Court. A note on IRS actions; the 1989 year was the only year petitioner and

his deceased wife were advised of a deficiency in 1992. One year later, in May 1993.

IRS _aithout reason or basis, “lumped” years 1990 and 1991 into correspondence with-

Out either appeals or recourse of discussion on reasons. Our continuing objections fell

on “ deaf ears” during all these years.

(3) Petitioner advises this Supreme Court that all of the single-spaced, under

lined and capitalized text and parentheses and transcript numbers are in the

original briefed pages to the Tax Court dated April 11, 1995.

OBJECTIONS TO SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT ON TAX COURT

Extracts From January 21, 1997 Briefings

The July 26, 1996 letter and enclosures to the Tax Court cited as petitioners’

Rule 155 computation (above) is Appendix D. (4) Enclosure 1 (Appx. No. D-2)

with this letter is dated July 10, 1996, and returned all erroneous documents

to the Tax Court received as respondent's computations to a William A. Selt-

zer which were without adjustments, explanations and different from errone-

ous service copy computations retumed to respondent on June 24, 1996. As

shown, appellant particularly objected to Tax Court Rule 155 as basis without

reasons for all opinions, decisions and orders by Special Trial Judge Lewis R.

Carluzzo who was also sitting Judge in February 16, 1995 Tax Court Trial in

Indianapolis, Indiana. Also considered improper was this Judge's sole find-

ings for IRS on the IRS deficiencies in 1989-1991 pursuant to his Tax Court's

Memorandum Opinion 1996-240 dated May 23, 1996, taking into consider-

ation Rule 155 computations and incorporating facts recited in respondent's

computations as the findings of the Court; see Appendix C. (5) His August

1, 1996 Order, Appendix B (6) improperly and wrongly had petitioners’

Rule 155 Computation. See Appendix D. (7) This July 26, 1996 letter re-

fers to the July 10, 1996 letter (Encl. 1) where all erroneous and mis-stated

documents dated July 5, 1996 from the Tax Court were retumed, asking for

advice on corrected information, corrected respondent's computations and

other dollar-amount computations to respond to under Rule 155; we stated

we could not respond to something we did not have.

Appellant does not make these charges of bias and an evident showing of

deference for respondent lightly; these are serious charges. Appellant has

been consistent and adament in his criticisms of the Tax Court trial conduct,

opinions and orders by this Judge, Appendix E, F and G. (8) Following ex-

cerpts are from February 16, 1995 Tax Court Trial Transcript as the answer on

cross from respondent's witness Smith:

(4) Appendix D is herewith as Appendix |-1 to I-4 (5) is also Appen-

dix C herewith, (6) is Appendix J herewith,

(7) is Appendix I-1 to |-4 herewith, (8) are Appendices K-1,

K-2 and K-3 herewith.

Note: See the related transcript pages quoted on prior page 6 above for

Court's (Judge Carluzzo's statements regarding transcript pages 75, 83, 85

and 87 during this cross.

a. Transcript page 82, line 14. A “The $202.52 deductions were overpayment

repayments and just..."

b. Transcript page 83, line 9. A “The overpayment deductions that we have

taker: over time out of your variety of checks did reduce the gross annuity

amount that we reported on your W2P."

c. Transcript page 83, line 18. A “The gross annuity amount on your W2P

reflects the gross monthly benfit that you're entitled to less any adjustments to

the gross that we've recollected as overpayments.”

d. Transcript page 83, line 23. A “The overpayments are all included as

reductions in calculating the gross annuity amount that we've put on your

W2Ps.”

Above answers were to questions on whether these amounts were overpay-

ment and repayment collections, whether they were gross instead of net in-

come totals after repayments and the fact that such repayments would not be

shown when reduced from annuity. So the Judge is wrong in his statement

on page 4 above (9) about OPM repayments. He has his decisions without

facts of the on-going 1989-1991 OPM repayments, considered from Appen-

dix (A)10 in that case, Tax Court Memo. 1996-240. (10)

Petitioner below quotes specific paragraphs from the Tax Court Memorandum 1996-

240 dated May 23, 1996 that is Appendix C herewith. These quotations are exact

quotations also included in the Petition for Review of Decisions of the U.S. Tax Court

dated January 21, 1997 to the U.S. Supreme Circuit Court. Reasons are these stated

opinions are the facts that petitioner claims his of bias and deference

for respondent by this Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo. Further, above quotes to transcript

pages 82 and 83 are pages included in the total 69 pages destroyed/deleted from the

ee grag egy apre are ge Jus-

tice Dept.). See top of page 5 in this petition. Quotations from January 21, 1997

briefings continue:

Page 3, bottom. “No other repayments were made by petitioner to OPM

during 1989. No repayments of annuity benefits, through deductions

from petitioner's pension benefits or otherwise, were made by petitioner

to OPM during 1990 and 1991.”

(9) and (10) are Appendix C herewith, Tax Court Memorandum 1996-

240 dated May 23, 1996.

-14-

Page 5, center. “Respondent's determinations, having been made in a

notice of deficiency, are presumptively correct, and petitioners bear the

burden of proving that such determinations are erroneous. Rule 142

(a); Welch v. Halvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115, 1993.”

Page 7, bottom. “Whatever petitioner's reasons for the claimed reductions,

or exclusions, petitioners have provided us with no authority, and we are

aware of none, that would entitle them to do what they did. In general,

unless specifically excluded, gross income means all income from what

ever source derived, including annuities. Sec. 61 (a)(8).”

Appellant has figuratively, as the records show, “flooded” the IRS people in

Indianapolis and the Tax Court people, including Judge Carluzzo, with con-

sistent and repetitive claims since 1992 that are lawful, NOT CASF'-BASED

specific exclusions supporting with authority appellant's actions; IRS Code

4027-3 to 4027-6, Sections 72(d) through 72(f). These are defined in Ap-

pendix D (11).

Internal Revenue Code (IRSC) 4027-3 to 4027-6 Sections 72(c), 72(d) and

72 (f) are specific with the words:

(1) 72(c) - “considerations paid for the contract, minus amount received to

the extent such amount was excludable from gross income.”

(2) 72(d) - “-amounts rece as annuity shall be excluded from the gross

income until excluded amou: 6 equal to amount or consideration contrib-

uted by employee.”

(3) 72(f)- “amounts paid directly to employee at time contributions of amounts

were made, would not be includable in gross income.”

Further, appellant's repayments of $6,084.60 for Richard and $183.60 for

Betty are neither shown, considered or noted by the IRS, even though listed

on IRS 1099 Forms for 1989, 1990 and 1991. These 1099 SSA Forms are

Appendix Q (12) and are with 1991. These 1099 SSA appellant's December

18, 1996 Docketing Statement to this Seventh Circuit Court.

(11) Appendix D Enclosures 2 and 3 are Appendix pages included in Appen-

dix page I-1 to I-4 herewith, (12) Appendix Q pages Q-1 and Q-2 are Appen-

dix pages L-1 and L-2 here with

-15-

c. All subsequent overpayment repayments made as contributions by appellant

under lawful and pertinent IRS authorities cited by appellant were 100 percent

employee contributions covered by 4027 Sections 72(c) to 72(f). Appellant

includes IRS authorities and particularly, Appendix D Enclosures. (13) Sec

tions 72(c) to 72(f) refer only to contributions wholly or at least 85 percent

that are from employee. The Sections 72(a) and 72(b) quoted often in Tax

Court proceedings refer only to contributions from both the employing agency

(OPM) and the employee as was the case for appellant's 1974 retirement

from Civil Service.

Enclosures 2 and 3 (11) specifically to Judge Carluzzo.

(End of Objections to Seventh Circuit Court on the Tax Court)

OBJECTIONS ON SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner believes it necessary to make extensive quotations from his Petition for Re-

hearing and suggestion for En Banc Rehearing as this Seventh Circuit Court has de-

parted greatly from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings lawfully re-

quired as adequate and proper adjudication. Also, this Seventh Circuit Court is in total

deference with the improprieties, lack of adjudication, bias and Judicial deviances of

the Tax-Court Judge in Court proceedings; in effect sanctioning also lower-court depar-

tures from accepted and usual courses of judicial proceedings. Further, the 1989, 1990

and 1991 published orders of both the Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C., for the Office of Personne!

Management to refund military service and social security and other unfounded and

unlawful overpayment collections as repayments to the Civil Service Retirement Act

(13) Appendix D Enclosures are Appendix |-1 to I-4 herewith.

Note: Appendix |-4 page lists Stipulations, Authorities and Issues in evi-

dences in Tax Court Trial. IRS Publication 525 is titles Taxable and Nontax

able Income and was also authority used as IRS Definition of “repayments”

and yearly-deduction instructions for such repayments within a income-tax

year, specifically 1989. Years 1990 and 1991 are unchanged.

Appendix |-4 page also lists all dollar ave as major issues in contention;

$7,291, $4,080, $1,418, $27 and $37 and $51 as offsets and reductions that

were unfounded by OPM, and total refunds ordered and due by MSPB and

Courts between 1989 and 1991. Appendices E-1, E-2 and E-3, Employee

Annuitant Master Record Printouts by OPM for years 1983 through 1987 show

offsets, reductions as overpayment repayments.

-16-

(CSRA) Fund have been totally ignored by Office of Personnel Management, the Tax

Court in trial and decisions and the Seventh Circuit Court in decisions as shown respec-

tively in Tax Court Memorandum 1996-240, Appendix C and the Seventh Circuit Court

Order, Appendix B. All of these lower Courts proceedings fall within the Supreme

Court's Part Ill. Jurisdiction on Writ of Certiorari, Rule 10. Considerations Govering

Review on Certiorari, subparagraph (a) and (c) regarding departures from accepted

and usual judicial proceedings of appeals courts, and conflicted decisions of federal

law which call for an exercise of the Supreme Court's Supervisory Power. Further,

petitioner's Constitutional Rights on page 3 above have been adversely abused by

both of the lower courts in this case. Objections are as follows:

DISCUSSIONS Despite appellant's adamant objections that the Tax Court

entries into the record were erroneous, incomplete with unlawful changes and

deletions, (2) this Court (Seventh Circuit) has further allowed new records

eliminations by Justice Department, for lines of evidence that were specific

facts relating to the issues raised by appellant-

(2) See Appellant's Brief, Jan. 21, 1997, pages 9 amd 10,

titles Tax Court's Certified Old and New Listings, Appellate Rules 10 and

11 on the Record. (14) and entered as evidence in Tax Court Trial on

February 16, 1995. The Justice Department has elimated sixty nine (69)

pages of the Transcript from the total 95 pages of Recorded Trial pro

ceedings. Because of these deletions from the Supplemental Appendix

for the appellee dated December 18, 1996 the only transcript pages as

excerpts total 26 and are numbered sequentially 15 through 40. With

specific calculations, Justice Department elimated only those evidences and

facts supporting all of appellant's overpayment repayment monetary claims.

Pages now missing from the Certified Transcript Record in the Seventh Cir-

cuit Court are pages No. 1 through 11, 16 through 25, 33 through 50,54

through 58, 60 through 66, 76 through 85 and 87 through 95. Issues of Tax

Court Record and Evidence deleted includes appellant's Social Security Ad

ministration facts on over payment repayments to the Civil Service Retire-

ment (CSR) Fund of $27, $37 and $64 monthly and still unresolved; overpay-

ment repayment ordered as refund of $7,291 and still unresolved; overpay-

ment repayment of $202.52 and $412 sums denied and ordered as refunds

to appellant in 1989 and 1991 and still unresolved; overpayment repayment

of $51 ($1,023 reduced to $972) is still unresolved; overpayment repayment

of $4,000 ($17,016 reduced to $13,661.74) and Military Service overpayment

repayment of $330 each month still unresolved. Other issues on cross ex-

(14) Pages 9 and 10 are Appendix pages H-1 and H-2.

xy &

amination of the IRS witness for Office of Personnel Management (Mr. Smith),

entry of new exhibits by appellant (9 each) into the record, certain documents

and letters and OPM-IRS Forms as the W-2PA, R120-53 and 1099 were also

on deleted pages. Specific comments by Special Judge Lewis Carluzzo,

IRS's Mr. Lawson and OPM witness Smith were on deleted pages. Appel-

lant claims as the Seventh Circuit Court did not receive these 69 pages of

evidential testimony it based it's order of August 27, 1997 improperly on

incomplete and biased records and testimony and ignores further proper

and pertinent laws in this case on behalf of appellant. Missing pages 33

through 50 included testimony on the IRS Code 4027 Sections No. 72(c),

(d), (e) and (f) including lawful statements allowing employee repayment

contributions as deductions from gross annuity within years 1989, 1990

and 1991.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS BY THE APPELLANT. Objection is made on

the unjust and non-judicial personal attacks stated by the Seventh Circuit

Court on the Brief being “so poorly written” and “frivolous procedural is-

sues” and dissatisfaction “in some inconsequential”. Appellant charges

these uncalled-for Court statements are basis for the Seventh Circuit's

actions under Circuit Rule 53(c)(2), Unpublished Orders Disposition al-

lowing the Court to omit statements of facts or make incomplete and non-

detailed statements in it's Order as it has evidently done in this Seventh

Circuit Case 96-3943.

Appellant charges that ignoring each and every fact of evidence shown

on these documents as noted above, is an erroneous number of dele-

tions of contary evidences and a bias in deference to the IRS by both the

Tax Court and the Seventh Circuit Court. Meaningful and lawful appellate

review particulary should require reasons that entire and all lines of

appellant's contrary evidences were rejected by the lower agency's (Tax

Court's) Administrative Judge, as the Seventh Circuit has done in other

cases. These facts and substantial evidences have not been addressed

as lawful issues before the Seventh Circuir Court in Case 96-3943. Ap

pellant strongly objects to the Seventh Circuit Court stating (Appx. A3)

(15) wrongly, and repeating respondent's same wrong statements, and

repeating the Tax Court’s same wrong statements that “Seltzer has failed

to direct us to any authorities, and we are aware of none, that would

permit him to set off amounts the OPM recouped from his because of an

overpayment.” and “Seltzer’s other set-offs have no statutory basis.

(15).Appx. A3 is Appendix page B-3 herewith

-18-

They arise out of dispute with the OPM and are, therefore, beyond the

jurisdiction of the Tax Court.” The Seventh Circuit has the evidence that

the sum of $7,291 was an overpayment repayment to the CSR Fund that

was denied by the Merit Systmens Protection Board and the Federal Cir-

cuit Court and OPM refund was ordered in 1989 and again in 1990 and

again in 1991. This was a proper “off-set” by appeliant of the 36 months

of $202.52. Other repayment refunds still pending from 1989-1990 are

likewise well evidenced and directed to the Seventh Circuit Court's atten-

tion which the Court has denied without reason or basis.

These are proper and lawful issues that requrie the review and articula-

tion by the Seventh Circuit Court as such was not made by the Agency

Tax Court. Therefore, appellant urges the Seventh Circuit Court approve

this Petition For Rehearing and Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc as

the only means of a fair and lawful judicial determination not yet made.

CONCLUDING STATEMENTS. If, as appellant has noted above, the Sev-

enth Circuit Court, has received from the Justice Department the same Supple-

mental Appendix dated December 18, 1996 as the Certified Record of appel-

lee with 69 pages of testimony supporting appellant's arguments deleted from

the February 16, 1995 Tax Court Trial Transcript, then a major dis-service has

been done to appellant. Further the Seventh Circuit can not condone such an

unlawful abuse as it has done by allowing the defective and objectionable Tax

Court Record also sent to the Court. Appellant argues that with such factual

evidences missing from this case that support appellant. The Court has not

rendered either an impartial or fair adjudication of Case 96-3943 nor does it

have in it's possession adequate records to affirm for respondent as it has.

Particularly, these missing transcript pages also supporting testimony that

shows both the Social Security Administration overpayment repayment re

funds were ordered by MSPB and the Courts, and the Military Service Re

serve Off-sets were also overpayment repayment refunds that are still all un

resolved since 1989, 1990 and 1991. Appendices D1 to D3 (16) are 1983,

1985 and 1987 OPM Employee Annuitant Master Record Printouts that are

part of this Case 96-3943 and show the Military Service computation at bot-

tom of pages is exactly eleven years (11:00) when included in appellant's

annuity in 1974. An increase in 1985 of $330 for 7 months and 14 days (224

days) of Active Reserve Military Service retroactive to 1954, was deleted by

OPM from CSR annuity as an overpayment repayment which is still unre-

solved.

(16) Appendices D1 to D3 are Appendices E-1, E-2 and E-3 herewith.

-19-

See Appendix D3(17) where Military Service is 11:00 in 1987. (18)

In regard to the issue of overpaymetns and repayments being twice-taxed

sums that are lawfully deductible. First, in 1992 and 1993 OPM made two

partial refunds for only $2,060 and $1,033 respectively and these overpay-

ment repayment refunds were included in net taxable income. See Appendix

B8 (19) at bottom of page where appellant has cited these two 1992 and 1993

refunds. IRS Publication 525, 1989-1991 covers IRS Repayments for ei-

ther Annuity or Cash-Basis Repayments. If an overpayment repayment (re-

fund) is made “during the tax year of an amount included in income in an

earlier year because at that time you thought you had an unrestricted night to

it” you can deduct the amount repaid from your income for this year (1989,

1990, 1991). Underlining and parentheses added. Amounts are being taxed

twice.

On the matter of appellant's Brief being “poorly written”. Appellant admits that

difficulty is evident in reading his appeals. However the record shows that

appellant's needs to elaborate greatly was and still is necessary because

both the Tax Court and Justice Department Certified Records were “tailored”

by changing and deleting pages. It was impossible for appellant to properly

refer to a certified-record page or exhibit or appendix when he had no true

reference identification. Poorly written brief or other document should be no

reason for judicial lack of either a proper and comprehensive review or adju

dication as is the case in both Tax Court’s Order and as repeated in the Sev

enth Circuit Order. Further both Courts improperly have deleted both the

Social Security and Military Service issues by saying the case “involves only

OPM annuity income.”

(17) Appendix D3 is Appendix E-3 herewith

(18) Date May 5, 1985 appellant's annuity was recomputed by OPM to in

crease his annuity income for Active Reserve Military Service from $1,006

monthly to $1,418. See Appendix E-2, 1985 Employee Annuitant Master

Record Printout. On September 1, 1986 OPM by unfounded offset reduction

as an overpayment renayment reduced gross pay from the $1,418 amount to

a new amount of $994 See Appendix E-3 with $1,418 deleted and Military

Service retumed to exactly eleven years (11:00).

(19) Appendix B8 is Appendix page M herewith; a Tax Court page.

-20-

9. This case is also described as a “relatively simple case unduly complicated

because of Seltzer's incomprehensible brief.” (underlining added). This indi

cated many filed claims are deleted. Finally, appellant charges that the fol-

lowing judicial statements have absolutely no place in either a published or

unpublished order of judgement from three Federal Judges. Such personally

ugly and unnecessary comments smack of bias and adversity in justice.

Appendix A3 (now B-3 top) “poorly written”

Appendix A3 (now B-3 top) “ambiguosly describes”

Appendix A3 (now B-3 bottom) “frivolous procedural issues”

Appendix A4 (now B-4 center) “Seltzer's incomprehensible brief’

Appendix A4 (now B-4 center) “unduly complicated”

Appendix A4 (now B-4 bottom) “inconsequential manner’

10. For all reasons of above objections and conclusions by appeliant, the

Seventh Circuit Court is asked for approval of this Petition For Rehearing

and Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc. At the very least, there is

indisputable evidence before the Seventh Circuit Court that the $7,291

($202.52 X 36) issue and the $27, $37, and $64 issues were ordered as

refunds in 1989 and 1991 and such refunds were not made by OPM and

these overpayment collections were and still are repayments to the CSR

Fund in 1989, 1990 and 1991. (3)The Tax Court should have adjudicated

these issues and at the very least, affirmed for appellant on these annuity

CSR repayments.

(dated Sept. 8, 1997) (signed Richard L. Seltzer)

(3) Both the Seventh Circuit Court and the Tax Court are fully aware that

the two “unidentified” OPM refunds are small and partial amounts of

$2,060 and $1,033 from all the overpayment repayment refunds ordered

by MSPB and the Courts in 1989 and again in 1991; refunds unpaid that

appellant deducted from OPM's income (1099 Form) totals for those

same years. These refunds in 1992 and 1993 were included as income

by OPM. See page 7 above and Appendix B8. Now page 20, paragraph

7 above and see Appendix M.

(End of Objections on Seventh Circuit Court Proceedings)

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Supreme Court Rule 14 in regard to Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is

precise in ordering direct, concise and brief circumstances and statements of the case

and related facts. In petitioner's case before the Court, he has consistently objected to

administrative and judicial proceedings at all levels of Govemment now parties to this

case; Respondent, Justice Department Counsel, Tax Court and Seventh Circuit. Pe-

titioner claims there are preponderant evidences of wrongdoings, numerous depar-

_ tures from accepted and usual judicial proceedings in both the Tax Court and the Ap-

peals Court, and various conflicts resulting with Federal and Constitutional Laws. To

prove such claims, petitioner presents to the Supreme Court about 17 pages of verba-

tim testimony from the February 16, 1995 Tax Court Trial and numerous documents

from the records of this case. There are 8 pages of verbatim Tax Court Trail proceed-

ings and testimony. There are about 4 pages of verbatim objections to the Seventh

Circuit Court on Tax Court bias, deference and partiality displayed to respondent and

adversities to petitioner. There are about 5 pages to the Seventh Circuit Court of verba-

tim quotations that are indented and single-spaced text showing preponderant evi-

dences of extreme adversities placed upon petitioner(s) in the proceedings of this case

between 1993 and 1997.

For these reasons, Supreme Court jurisdiction is considered appropriate and justified

under the Court's Rule 10 Jurisdiction to exercise the Court’s supervisory power over

both lower Courts. These actions by opposing parties to petitioner sustained by the

Seventh Circuit Court, and above asserted facts, go far beyond mere errors in judge-

ments, adjudications and mistakes with records. Above verbatim quotations speak

Clearly in support of petitioner's claims against his opponents that are the parties in this

case.

Petitioner requests this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Seventh Circuit Court of

Appeals be allowed.

Respectfully submitted,

January 23, 1998 Pabst sx Loz

(date) Richard L. Seltzer, Pro Se”

Petitioner

-22-

STATMENT OF SERVICE

|, Richard L. Seltzer, petitioner, certify that | have served two (2) copies of all attached

documents (Petition and Appendices) by first-class, prepaid postage mail on persons

below:

January 23, 1998

(date)

Respondent's Counsels

Mr. Anthony Sheehan, Ms. Ann Dumey

Tax Division, Department of Justice

P.O. Box 502

Washington, D.C. 20044

Other

Solicitor, General of the United States

Room 5614, Department of Justice

10th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Richard L. Seltzer, Pro Se - eg

Petitioner

-23-

———, mAsv

CORRES io—_ ewe

tarzan sioraae 4 egigesse | 2USERR AE :

el ~ondd* Tasca

wets saece 4

? : ;* ’ . . ‘

sare 28 opt e ee 2 } m7 | souese a ee oe

oz 08 18| 43 03 30| EM | aus | | 226 | 00 e7 12 | o2z2s

23 03 31| 4 07118 cos aus 1 ; 1296 33 03 36 3:2C9

sé 07 18] 49 08 30) COM | CRC a2 ib 12 | o167

23 OF CLi $3 08 36 cee wSar 21 1s ae 31 ¢O 60 3353

39 07 Gi| $1 Ge 30] CON | USAR ‘ bo |i | 273 | 31 co 6¢ | 300

31 O7 Si; $2 96 398 co" usar 366 01 6cO OS | 0306

$207 ¢h| $3 06.30] COM | USAR 303 | 01 00 OG : C305

$3 07 ¢1| Se Ge 30] COR | USAR 3e5 | G2 co OG | 365

$4 67 CL) $5 Ge 30 con usar 345 61 co OG | 03865

$507 CL| $@ ce 30] CON | USAR 3ee | OL 00 GO | 0306

53 C7? ¢1| 57 C@ 30} COR | USAR 3e5 | €1 ¢o o¢ | o39S

$7 07 Ci} 38 06 30; COM usar | is 141 61 co oO o1se

$a 07 ClL| SH 36 30 cor CSaAR 23 is 16 ci co 00 ooss

$9 O7 G1] 60 36 30 con usaR 21 15 te | Gi SO 9C |, COS2

sc 07 Cl] @2 0@ 3C] COM } USAR 30 1s 1$ | 32 CO OO | COSC

61 OF C1 62 06 30 con usa 42 15 1s | ot Co OO | COT2

62 37 CL] @3 G& 39 com CSar 24 . is 13 | 61 Co 00 00$2

63 07 CL| 6@ 06 30; COM USARz 32 1s 3; 91 00 00 ooso

6@ C7 CL} 63 36 3C COA USAR 25 fe | 18 te | OL CO OO oem

$4 07 Cl] 66 06 30 oN usar 2s | 45 1¢ | O1 00 00 octet

35 Of CL) #7 2 30)| COM | USAR 18 fe | a3 14 | oj C0 60 | pou

6? 37 Cl| 68 06 30) COM | USAR 22 ie | 28 1a | 02 co oC | soLe

68 a7 CL| 9 0@ 3¢| COM | USAR 27 i» | 38 @ | 01 co 00 | 08%

69 07 CL| 70 06°39 cor usar 15 b co co oc 9029

73 37 Ci} 70 12 C3 co" USaa e oo ¢oO co occe

72 12 C4] TL 04 29 con Imact 00 66 09 6000

TL G6 30| tE-Oe-30-4 COM | RETIRE E

Fi Onaz

| \

= | |

| is | |

_ c=

| | ae

| | { |

} ; | \

' | | " ‘ aeto 12 e768

SER eG bP OS "AS 'e Tee 5 tree OSB OS Fe “7°28 3¥ ce oy

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August7, 1997

Decided August 27, 1997*

Before

Hon. Richard A. Posner, Chief Circuit Jugde

Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Jugde

Hon. Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Juged

RICHARD L. SELTZER, Appeal from the United

Petitioner-Appellee, States Tax Court.

No. 96-3943

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEUE, No. 25353-93

Respondent- Appellee. Lewis R. Carluzzo,

Special Trial Jugde

ORDER

Richard Seltzer appeals the Tax Court's decision sustaining the Commis-

sioner of Internal Reveue's determination increasing his taxable annuity income

and consequent tax liablity.1 We affirm.

Seltzer was a civilian employee of the Department of Defense from 1964

until his retirement in 1974. During this time, he participated in the Civil Service

Retirement System. Seltzer also retired from the United States Army Reserves in

4981 and from this time, he Ohio Public Utility Commission in 1983. During the

three years at issue, 1989 through 1991, he received civil service retirement ben-

efits as well as retirement benefits from the Army, the Public Employees Retirement

System of Ohio, and from Social Security. Since the mid-1980s, Seltzer has been

involved in ongoing disputes with the Office of Personnel Management, which adminis-

*After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded

that oral argument is unnecessary; accordingly, the appeal is submitted on the

briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. p. 34 (a) ; Cir. R. 34 (f).

1 Betty L. Seltzer, Richard Seltzer’s wife, was a party in this case before

the Tax Court, But died before the notice of appeal was filed.

ters the Civil Service Retirement System, conceming distribution overpayments and

annuity credit for military service.2

This case involves only annuity distributions for 1989, 1990 and 1991. in

1986, the OPM determined that Seltzer had been mistakenly overpaid $7,291 in annu-

ity benefits during previous years. The OPM began to recoup this overpayment by

withholding $202.52 from Seltzer's monthly distributions. The entire amount was re-

covered as of August 31, 1989, including a withholding of $1,620.16 during that year.

The distribution shown on the Form W-2P(A) ( (Statement for Recipients of Periodic

Annuities, Pensions, Retired Pay, or IRA Payments) issued by the OPM to Seltzer for

1989 was net of the $1,620.16 withholding. No amounts were withheld thereafter.

Seltzer reported pension and annuity distributions of $29,037, $32,165, and

$33,840 on line 17a of his tax retums for 1989 through 1991, respectively. These

totolas were dreived from the following sources:

Payor 1989 1990 1991

CSRS $11,447.84 $13,680.00 $14,412.00

PERS $3,649.32 $3,748.32 $3,847.32

Amy 13,939.68 14,7362.99 $15,581.40

Total $29,036.84 $32,165.31 $33,840.72

On line 17b of his retums from 1989 through 1991, Seltzer reported what he considered

to be the taxable portion of the foregoing pension and annuity totals, i.e., $18,039,

$21,923, and $23,169, respectively. These totals reflected annual exclusions Seltzer

made from the annuity distribuitions. As a result of these setoffs, the Commissioner

calculated deficiencies in Seltzer's income tax liability from 1989 through 1991 in the

amounts of $1, 980, $2,032, and $2,092, respectively. Seltzer petitioned the Tax Court,

disputing these deficiencies. The case went to trial and the Tax Court upheld the

Commissioner's determinations with the exceptionof an eror conceming the 1991 tax

year, which was corrected by stipulation of the parties.3 Seltzer appeals.

2 See, e.9., Seltzer v. OPM, No. 96-3063, 1996 WL 250320 (Fed. Cir.

June 12, 1986); Seltzer v. OPM, No. 94-3389, 1994 WL 652196 (Fed. Cir.

Nov. 18, 1994); Seltzer v. OPM, No. 92-3450, 1992 WL 295175 (Fed. Cir.

Oct. 19, 1992); Seltzer v. OPM, 83 F. 2d 975 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

3 The IRS initially overstated the 1991 deficiency as $2,332.

Seltzer's brief is so poorly written that we, like the Tax Court, are “unable

completey to follow (Seltzer's) arguments.” (Mem. Op. at 5.) Nonetheless, it appears

that Seltzer's set-offs reflect the amounts withheld by the OPM to recoup its overpay-

ment, as well as what he ambiguously describes as a “Social Security Administration

Offset” and “military service credits.” The Tax Court summed up Seltzer's rationale for

his exclusions as “amounts that (he) repaid to OPM during the relevant year,” which he

alleges had already been taxed, and the “amount(s) that (he alleges he) should have

received for such if OPM whould have properly computed his CSRS retirement ben-

efits.” (Id. at 4, 5.)

Our review begins by determining taxable income. Taxable income is derived

from gross income, which includes annuities. 26 U.S.C. P 61 (a) (9), 72(a). A taxpayer

may exclude from the taxable amount of annuity distributions received any contribu-

tions or investments made to an annuity. 26 U.S.C. P72(b).4 Deficiencies determined

by the Commissioner are presumed to be correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of

proving otherwise. Pittman, 100 F. 3d at 1313. We review questions of law decided by

the Tax Court de novo. Pittman v. C.I.R., 100 F. 3d 1308, 1312 (7th Cir. 1996).

Seltzer has failed to direct us to any authorities, and we are aware of none,

that would permit him to set off amounts the OPM recouped from him because of an

overpayment. In any event, 1989 was the only relevant year in which the OPM re-

couped overpayments. The recoupment made that year by the OPM was net of the

gross amount reported on the Form W-2P(A), and which Seltzer reported on line 17a of

his retum. Therefore, any argument that he was trying to avoid double taxation is

Selizer’s other set-offs have no statutory basis. They arise out of disputes

with the OPM and are, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Tax Court. His strategy

appeared to the Tax Court, and appears to us, to be attempt to recoup, through reduced

federal income taxes, what he claims he should have received in govemment benefits.

A taxpayer is not permitted to undertake self-help measures through his tax returns to

gain government is not a unitary creditor in which debits and credits can be balanced

between the IRS and other agencies in the taxpayer's discretion.

4 In this case, Seltzer contributed $6,350 towards his retirement an

nuity, which the OPM recouped by the end of 1975. This contribu-

tion is not the basis of the exclusions he took in 1989 through 1991.

Seltzer also raises several frivolous procedural issues, oniy one of which warrants

discussion.5 Seltzer argues that under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, 26 U.S.C.P 6201(d),

the Commissioner bears the burden of proving the correctness of his retums. This

provision provides as follows:

In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with re-

spect to any item of income reported on an information retum filed with the

Secretary...and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary..., the

Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative infor-

mation conceming such deficiency in addition to such information retum.

While this stature is likely inapplicable to this case because it went into effect on July 30,

1996, after the trial,6 any retroactive effect would make no difference here. Seltzer

does not dispute any item of income reported. There is no controversy as to the amounts

that he received in annuity payments or the amounts of non-taxable exclusions. The

only contention is whether his exclusions are justified, and they clearly are not. Morever,

the Commissioner has produced sufficiently probative information to substantiate its

determination of Seltzer’s deficiencies in a relatively simple case unduly complicated

because of Seltzer's incomprehensible brief.

AFFIRMED.

5 Although difficult to follow, Seltzer’s brief also appears to contend that (1) the

administrative hearing he was afforded should not have “lump(ed)" the tax

years 1990 and 1991 together with 1989; (2) the Tax Court prevented a wit-

ness from answering a math computation quetion (though Seltzer told the Tax

Court judge, “(i)t's nor necessary"); (3) he was not served with the

Commissioner's Tax Court Rule 155 computations (though he was served by

the Tax Court with the Commissioner's Rule 155 computations and sent them

back to the court because of what he described as “manifest errors”); and (4)

he is dissatisfied in some inconsequential manner with the certified record as

transmitted to this court from the Tax Court. None of these contentions bear

upon the merits of Seltzer’s deficienciencies in his reported taxable income.

6 This case went to trial on February 16, 1995 and the Tax Court issued its

opinion on May 23, 1996. On June 12, 1996, the Tax Court denied Seltzer's

motion for reconsideration and, on August 30, 1996, it entered its decision

sustaining the deficiencies determinded by the Commissioner.

T.C. Memo. 1996-240

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

RICHARD L. AND BETTY L. SELTZER, Petitioners v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 25353-93. Filed May 23, 1996.

Richard L. Seltzer, pro se. Served

May 26,1996

J. Eric Lawson, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursant to section

7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182.1 Respondent determined deficiencies in

petitioners’ 1989, 1990, and 1991 Federal income taxes in the amounts of $1,980,

$2,032, and $2,332, respectively. The issue for decision is whether petitioners must

include in income the entire amount of Civil Service Retirement System CSRS) retire-

ment benefits received by Richard L. Seltzer during each year in issue. All other adjust-

ments made in the notice of deficiency are computational in nature and will automati-

Cally be resolved in accordance with the resolution of the disputed issue.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of

facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference. Dur-

ing the years in issue, petitioners were husband and wife and filed joint Federal income

tax retums. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in New Palestine,

Indiana. References to petitioner are to Richard L. Seltzer.

Petitioner was employed in a civilian capacity by the Department of Defense

from 1964 until his retirement in 1974. As a civilian Federal goverment employee,

petitioner participated in the CSRS, and over the term of his employment made non-tax

advantaged contributions towards a CSRS retirement annuity in the amount of $6,350.

Petitioner retired from the Department of Defense on September 1, 1974, and began

receiving CSRS retirement benefits (the annuity) sometime after

1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Intemal Rev-

enue Code in effect for the years in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure.

July of 1975. Petitioner's annuity took into account his prior military service with the

U.S. Amy. It appears ihat petitioner has been involved in long standing, ongoing dis-

putes with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)2 conceming whether OPM

gave him proper credit towards his annuity for his military service.3 Petitioner claims

that because OPM failed to give him proper credit for certaim military service, his annu-

ity benefits have been less than they should have been.’

In 1986, OPM determined that petitioner was overpaid annuity benefits for

prior periods in the amount of $7,291. Consequently, OPM began collecting the over-

payment by deducting, or withholding, $202.52 from petitioner's monthly annuity distri-

butions. Through this method, as of August 31, 1989, OPM had collected the entire

amount of the overpayment, and the deductions from petitioner's annuity distributions

did not continue beyond that date. For various reasons, petitioner does not necessarily

agree that he was overpaid for the earlier years, nevertheless, through the deductions

from his monthly annuity benefits he “repaid” $1,620.16 to OPM in 1989. No other

repayments were made by petitioner to OPM during 1989. No repayments of annuity

benefits, through deductions from petitioner's pension benefits or otherwise, were made

by petitioner to OPM during 1990 and 1991.

During the year 1989, after having his annuity distributions reduced as dis-

cussed above, petitioner received annuity benefits from OPM in the amount of

$11,447.84.4 Although the Form W-2P(A) issued by OPM to petitioner with respect to

the year 1989 characterized the amount as a “gross” distribution, in fact it was net of the

$1,620.16 repayment. For the years 1990 and 1991, petitioner received $13,680 and

$14,412, respectively, in annuity distributions. The 1990 amount was appropriately

reported on a Form W-2P(A), and the 1991 amount was appropriately reported on a

Form 1099R.

2 OPM is responsible for the administration of the CSRS.

3 In this regard see Seltzer v. Office of Personnel Management, 833 F. 2d 975

(Fed. Cir. 1987).

4 Petitioner retired from the U.S. Army Reserves as a lieutenant colonel in 1981.

He retired from the Ohio Public Utility Commission as an administrative officer

in 1983. During each year in issue, in addition to his CSRS annuity distribu-

tions, petitioner also received pension or annuity income from the U.S. Army,

the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio (PERS), and Social Secu-

rity benefits. The disputed issue in this case involves only petitioner's CSRS

annuity.

On line 17a of their 1989, 1990, and 1991 Federal income tax retums, peti-

tioners reported “Total pensions and annuities” in the amounts of $29,036.84, $32,165.31,

and $33,840.72, respectively.5 On line 17b of their tax retums for each of the years in

issue, petitioners listed the “taxable amount’ of such items as $18,039, $21,923, and

$23, 169, respectively. In computing the amounts reported on line 17b, petitioners

reduced the amounts shown on line 17a for each year by $10,998, $10, 242, and

$10,672, respectively. The amounts of the reductions relate entirely to the CSRS annu-

ity distributions.

In the notice of deficiency respondent that petitioners were not entitled to the

reductions claimed, and, in addition to other adjustments not in dispute, increased pe-

titioners’ income for each year in issue by the amount of the reduction claimed by

petitioners in commection with petitioner's CSRS annuity distributions.6

Respondent's determinations, having been made in a notice of defiency, are

presumptively correct, and petitioners bear the burden of proving that such determina-

tions are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

Although we are unable completely to follw petitioners’ arguments, it appears

that they take the position that the reductions, or exclusions, were proper for two rea-

sons. First, they claim that the reductions reflect amounts that they repaid to OPM

during the relevant year. As best as we can tell from the record, petitioners allege that

petitioner repaid or contributed previously taxed income to OPM in an amount totaling

$13,844.90 7 between the years 1983 and 1989. Petitioners contend that the reduc-

tions in some manner relate to these alleged repayments or contributions and that

unless the reductions are allowed portions of petitioner's retirement benefits will effec-

tively have been taxed twice. Secondly, they argue that they are entitled to reduce the

amount received from OPM for each year by the amount that petitioner should have

received should have received for such year if OPM would have properly computed his

CSRS retirement benefits.

5 These totals consisted of the following items:

Payor 1989 1990 1994

PERS $3,649 32 $3,748.32 $3,847.32

U.S. ARMY 13,939.68 14,736.99 15,581.40

OPM 11,447.84 13,680.00 14,412.00

Total $29,036.84 $32,165.31 $33,840.72

6 In the notice of deficiency, respondent erroneously overstated the amount of

the 1991 adjustments on this item. The parties stipulated that the proper

amount of the adjustment should have been $10,672

7 Specifically, petitioner asserts that he repaid or contributed income to OPM in

the amounts of $152, $1,295.16, $2,562.84m $3,354.26, $2,430.24,

$2,430.24, and $1,620.16 for the years 1983 through 1989, respectively.

While we agree, as respondent apparently does, that as a general proposition taxpay-

ers should not be twice taxed on the same income, we fail to see any relationship

between the amount that petitioner claims to have reapid to OPM during 1983 through

1989, and the amount by which petitioners reduced the CSRS retirement benefits for

each year. In any event, we find that with respect to the years before us, the only

repayment made by petitioner occured in 1989, and the amount of such repayment

was taken into account in the amount of gross annuity distributions reported on the

Form W2-P(A) issued to petitioner for that year. There is no evidence in the record of

any repayments with respect to the years 1990 or 1991. We believe petitoner consid-

ers the term “repayment" to include amounts that he should have received from OPM

based upon his calculations of what his retirement benefits should have been. Such

“repayments” do not give rise to the potential of subjecting petitioners to souble taxation

on the same income.

Even is the record contained sufficient evidence to do so, which it soes not, it

is well beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to determin the proper amount of petitioner's

CSRS retirement benefits. While the record does not reveal what petitioner should

have received as annuity distributions from OPM during the years in issue, we do know

what he did receive, evidenced not only by the amounts reported on the Forms W-

2P(A) or 1099R, but by the stipulations of the parties as well. It would appear to us that

petitioner, by excluding portions of his annuity distributions, is attempting to recoup,

through reduced Federal income taxes, what he claims he should have received in

annuity benefits. i“

Whatever petitoner’s reasons for the claimed reductions, or exclusions, peti-

tioners have provided us with no authority, and we aware of none, that would entitle

them to do what they did. In general, unless specifically excluded, gross income means

all income from whatever source derived, including annuities. Sec. 61(a)(9). More

specifically, Section 72(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided in chapter 1

(Normal Taxes and Surtaxes), gross income includes any amount received as an annu-

ity (wheter for a period certain or during one or more lives) under an annuity, endow-

ment or life insurance contract.8 No provision of Section 72 supports the position taken

by petitioners in this case.

Over the 3-year period in issue, petitioners excluded a total of $31,911.84

from the annuity distributions petitioner received from OPM. Exclusions from income

cannot be implied, but must be unambiguously proven. Cf. United States v. Wells

Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351 (1988). This petitioners have failed to do. As previously

stated, petitioners have not called our attention to any authority, and we know of none,

that would permit them to exclude any portions of petitioner's annuity distributions from

their income for the years in issue. Accordingly, respondent's determination increasing

petitioners’ income for the years 1989, 1990, and 1991, as set forth above is sustained,

except to the extent set forth supra in note 6.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.

Petitioners do not claim that they are entitled to exclude portions of the annu-

ity distributions in dispute in accordance with Sec. 72(b). According to OPM,

petitioner would have recovered his contributions many years before the years

in issue, We assume petitioner, pursuant to a prior version of Sec. 72(b),

would have appropriately excluded from income the annuity distributions that

represented the recovery of his contributions.

Hon. Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge

Hon. Frank H. Eastbrook, Circuit Judge

Hon. Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge

Richard L. Seltzer, ( Appeal from the

Petitioner-Appeliant, ( United States Tax Court.

(

No. 96-3943 V. (

( No. 25353-93

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ( Lewis R. Carluzzo,

Respondent-Appellee. ( Special Trial Judge

ORDER

On September 10, 1997, petitioner-appeliant filed a petition for rehearing en

banc. All the judges on the onginal pane! have voted to deny the petition, and none

of the active judges has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The petition is therefore DENIED.

U/L) + SAE ae of .¢ e /

“— -o wee Of oe

+ Hama FO 9 FE FHENENG pes CUED © eOEe tore weer) = Lumen memons Lewis Seon? somes BREDA sheimoue HOME me fevers lat woke t

ae... oto . :

a audbe. “ _ T Y “T

, wal? i bab wre wi L 0

. a reruns eee — oe oe

g ~~ wee pb,

i] “ +4 wus wae

2 a) es] -esemms oa poll wiet owes 8/00/41...

+ .t.@e8 ° ee tere: ~<a Nig

. ded ra

ee ee Te aw) see = 169

ee - iv 1 - OM £0 - ¥3 "- on

V8 ~

“. ANNONY norma 3A — ) 96 1804 1NO2

i 15

+ E919) WT SNTISTIVd AN

' 4

DOE ZI vs pay

eee faves seed eens me tem

‘ --

"29 wots woe il | aes | 2 * , ANOIN1G4 GUO BRISVH LIL Ife 1210108)

-'9fadfs &= = 4 eagle. 4 — .

°° cee eee oe ee en sees ere & ee save emssST'S' LE EES Seems ceases Soa ten bones anal *

aE '

v i T T T _— 4

Seg pe ‘ re Got Aw

« Sent

oe bad ~ ume Soe

‘ of vive wel ne /0€/

oo oo ™~

— eel

——> ne -——- | eee ee Ceiiental ad

e Fad sive mest InnOmy wO119N038 eo 1$0d 1NO9

l P 9

59 Wee Om - a pore ogg bh ~lAzd 2p

Ly $ 2//7 rr

<> eee ores er Tt er rt ree <snee Coa ue sovem wonivewe

——— a I mJ if Ld 1 T T

Zz qT pol - we BOl LW 2-81 y $0.

or we oo ew ee ew ra peruns ete) Yr

+ = PR bes acto

— | ~ off : aoe d wea poe}

3a 5 — we =. teem “Sooeun ean wens, ‘ernueno Crna td eee weel Guan pO /0C /y....

if = | oe Bere. ri

Liat oases bee ose ry

—— _: — eee at me ary ev nee teow oer a pt

000 00000 00 0000 - 300 00 - 39 zt - iv ' - co ¥3 a |

3 a, i.

fp ; te

pA LY c@e€ 31va anssiay AWNORY WOIL9NGIY ve) 9S 180d 1NOd

. ia ssi ______

0” it axmnawy 9s 1808 ' ED weave ,

“a (= : om oft cab

—- ese rom met ® APOINIGS GUOORU URISWH NL ITOer 22101e)

United States Washington, D.C. 20415-0001

Office of in reply Reter to: Your Reference:

Personnel Management CRRRJidsp CSA 1730093

July 23, 1993

Mary L. Detjen

Administrative Judge

Merit Systems Protection Board

230 S. Dearbom St.

Room 3100

Chicago, IL 60604-1669

Dear Ms. Detjen:

This is in reply to your order of July 9, 1993 conceming Mr. Richard L Seltzer, docket

number CH-0831-91-0663-C-1. We are in compliance with your decision. OPM cred-

ited all periods of active duty military service in the computation of Mr. Seltzer’s annuity.

These includes the following:

-08/19/42 to 07/18/46

-07/14/49 to 07/30/49

-08/06/49 to 08/22/49

-08/20/50 to 09/03/50

-10/14/50 to 11/18/57

-10/14/50 to 06/21/59

-05/14/60 to 05/29/60

-04/22/61 to 05/06/61

-05/26/62 to 06/09/62

-03/30/63 to 04/12/63

-after employment in the Federal service

-06/28/64 to 07/11/64

-06/2765 to 07/10/65

-07/03/066 to 09/03/66 (216 Days)

Total military service credited is 11 years 7 months and 6 days. Only active

duty service can be credited as affirmed in your opinion.

We also continued the amount of the annuity reduction of $27.00 at age

62 for post-1965 military service under Social Security coverage. The correct re-

duction is $37.00 per month, as explained in our previous letter of September 23,

1992. The annuity was recomputed as follows: Post 1956 Military Social Security:

ANNUITY REDUCTION NEW RATE

03/01/83 $952.00 $37.00 $915.00

Cost of living increases

3.9 04/01/83 950.00

3.5 12/01/84 983.00

1.3 12/01/86 995.00

42 12/01/87 1,036.00

40 12/01/88 ‘ 1,077.00

47 12/01/89 1,127.00

5.4 12/01/90 1,187.00

3.7 1201491 1,230.00

3.0 12/01/92 1,266.00

Because the intial reduction was less than $37.00, there is an additional overpay-

ment.

Mr. Seltzer's claim that sick leave was not properly credited was not accepted as vail

in your decision. All of the issues raised have been resolved, except for the matter of

the additional overpayment.

Sincerely,

William C. Jackson, Chief

Reconsideration Division

CC: Richard L. Seltzer

4839 W. Quail Run Dr.

New Palestine, IN 46163

United States

Office of

Personnel Management Washington, D.C. 20415-0001

April 19,1995

Nina Puglia Re: Appealof

Administrative Judge Richard L. Seltzer v. OPM

Merit Systems Protection Board CH-0831-95-0675-I-1

230 South Dearbom Street, Room 3100 CSA 1 730 093

Chicago, IL 60604-1669

Dear Ms. Puglia:

As requested, we are furnishing one copy of our file for the above referenced

appeal. Our reconsideration decision dated February 24, 1995, explains our position in

this case.

We wouid like to advise appellant that the service used in the computation of

is annuity is 22 years two months 28 days. This includes 11 years 7 months 6 days of

military service and 5 months and 20 days sick leave. | have enclosed a computer run

of appellant's annuity computation. As of March 1, 1983, appellant's annuity was sub-

ject to reduction of $37.00 as certified by the Social Security Administration. The rate

shown was computed using the current rate ($952.00) less the $37.00 reduction for a

new rate of $915.00. All subsequent cost of living adjustments have been added to the

reduced rate. (See Tab. 6) Appellant is currently receiving the maximum annuity to

which he is entitled and has received all monies due him to date.

As a matter of information, | can be reached at 202-606-0555.

Sincerely,

Connie E. Torrillo

Agency Representive

Appeals Branch

Reconsideration and Appeals Division

Richard L. Seltzer

4839 W. Quail Run Drive

New Palestine, IN 46163

interna: Sevenve Servos Notce Date 07-14-97

- Fe Department of ne Treasury Notee Number CP 504

CINCINNATI, OM 65999

SSNWEIN: 599-10-2606

874127

acai Halal lactMabesbosetMoseabsctotlostellstll assaf TH ERE ISA

RICHARD L & BETTY L SELTZER

6839 WwW QUAIL RUN DR

NEW PALESTINE IW 46163-9661596

Wb 10

We intend to levy. Please respond NOW. pre

(To avoid additonal penalty and interest, pay your overdue tax in full

Our records indicate you have not paid your overdue tax. SS A

you file your return. Thus is formal notice of our intent to levy (take) your , bank account, auto or

other property if we do not receive your payment in full, We can also file’, Notice of Federal Tax Lien, if we

have not already done so.

jae

= 1040 7 aioe 12-31-89 | y a

@3,556.19 / 980

a sas 0.00

Penalty to date 69.30

Interest to dete Bevo 2

New Balance: 3,810.76 =

= 3707!

See enciosed Pubic ahon 594 that expians Nad

3. eae Questions? Callus et jesetiiiose:s

Presse mai ths part Wah your payment, pavabie to intemal Revenue Service CP S04

Pe on ma 07-14-97

ee . [as Due

1 -¥1-80 £399-1% 260% 3,810.76 |

399202606 UP SELT 30 D 8922 &70 09000383074

restenatie tna RICHARD L & BETTY § SELTZER

CIMeTWMAT efss oes Ww ouaic Rud DR

PALESTINE IN 66163-9661398

T&- De Menie wltHs Per fEr Fh FKIRVIN

G:3e-

P 901 779 68) O02179 9012

Deparmert cf! the Treasury Netice Number CP 504

$f interna! Sevecve Sewice Notice Date achat

CINCINNATI, OF 465999

SSNEIN: 5399-10-2606

Caller ID: 874127

EM deel bebebee celled Mell t Moll

RICHARD L & BETTY L SELTZER

4839 WwW QUAIL RUN DR

NEW PALESTINE IN 46163-9661398 LIDGUENTEN NENA

*#39910260610i18

Final Notice !!

We intend to levy. Please respond NOW.

(To avoid additional penalty and interest, pay your overdue tax in

Our records indicate you have not paid your overdue tax. The lawr: at you pay your tax at the time

you file yourreturn. This is formal notice of our intent to levy (take) yor paycheck, bank account, auto or

other property if we do not receive your payment in full. We can als file a Notice of Federal TaxLien, j

have not already done so

_—_——

—_

——

PAY YOUR TAX TODAY

Account Sum

—— Tax AAAS

| Form loco | [Tex Period 12-31-90 V/bGEER ~

Pnor Balance $3,270.79 (whe wr!

Last Payment: ¢0.00

Penalty to date: #40 66

Interest to date $94.03

New Balance: 3,405.46

See enclosed Publication $94 that explains

yournghts end responsibuites es « taxpey Questions? Callusat 1-800-829-8815

Please mai the part with your peyment, peyabie to internal Revenue Service Notice \ CP 504

Notice Date 04-14-97

“rue on your cheat: [ {Due:

[L040 |12-31-90| 399-100-2606 | 03,405.46

399302606 UP SELT 30 0 9032 &70 OOCOOS4OSYL

internal Revenue Service RICHARD L & BETTY L SELTZER

CINCINNATI, OK 45999 4839 W QUAIL RUN DR

_NEW PALESTINE IW 46163-9661598

P 901 779 882 002180 Yyiae

Department of tre Treasury Notice Number CP 504

pte a! Reverve Service Notice Date 04-16-97

CINCINNATI, OH 65999 =

SSNEIN: 599-10-2606

Caller iD: 874127

PALL PP eee eee Lene Pee Pee |

RICHARD L & BETTY L SELTZER

46839 WwW QUAIL RUN DR

NEW PALESTINE IN 46163-9661598

TIMAEAESOEI

*S991026061018

“a Final Nolice !!

We intend to levy. Please respond NOW.

(To avoid additional penalty and interest, pay your overdue tax in full today )

Our records indicate you have not paid your overdue tax. The law requires tha

you file yourreturn. This is formal notice of our intent to levy (lake) your

y your tax at the

, bank account, auto or

have not already done so

PAY YOUR TAX TODAY

Account Summary MOP

Form 1640 | Tax Period 12-31-91 Tpxl¥ eo

Pnor Balance 3,056.46 Pa [lz 2 -

Last Payment: ¢0.00 he /

Penalty to date $61..86 (ufo ™

Interest to date: ¢87.68

| New Balance: #3,186.18 |

See enciosed Pubbcation $94 that expiems

your nghts and responsibiibes as « taxpeyer Questions? Caliusat 1-800-829-8815

Please mail ts pert with your payment, peyabie to internal Revenue Service

Notice Number CP 504

Notce Dete 04-14-97

rue on your cheat Amount Due |

[1060 [12-31-91 |399-10-2606 | ¢3,186.18

399302b0— UP SELT 30 0 9332 &70 OOD0033EEI8

internal Revenue Sernice RICHARD L & BETTY L SELTZER

CINCINNATI, OH 45999 46839 W QUAIL RUN DR

NEW PALESTINE IW 46163-9661598

0118780

April 17 27

PAYTOTHE nent. of the Treasury * Internal Revenues Service *¢** 43,405.46 sees

7. —

ORDER OF

ACHING aac Gu 3

awe FT. PERO Be

oo OF MeruceY

USEESTON SENT UCKY

naowee Richard Seltzer

"#0448 760" WOU? 40 4 4908 &25"0980 3°

Third Bank ?

com ~- Of 0118779

Fee ty ; mn Aweih 7 is 2

PROGR oF Department of the Treasury * Internal Revenue Service $3,186.18 eee [

cinema aietiaiie wa" oad

b AOMAREES TAG AotST Bus

70818779" #04 24088908: 6 25"0980 3"

of H.R. 2337 by the 104th Congress was January 3, 1996 at the second session.

Appellant believes that this law's specific reference in footnotes on pages 7 and 8

above, that "—the Secretary (of the Treasury) shall have the burden of producing rea-

sonable and information such --" (underlinings added)

supercedes Tax Court's opinion that any IRS decision is “presumed correct” and “erro-

neous proof was sole burden of petitioners” based on a 1933 case, 63 years old, cited

by the Tax Court on page 6 above.

TAX COURT'S CERTIFIED OLD AND NEW LISTINGS

Appellate Rules 10 and 11 on the Record.

Appellant charges the facts show the Tax Court certified listings of Entries into the

Record are erroneous, incomplete and unlawful changes and deletions are evident.

There are 3 listings dated November 20, 1996, December 4, 1996 and December 18,

1996, a “new’, revised listing of the documents supposedly in the case record. A

cursory review of the December 18, 1996 listing enclosing a misdated November 20,

1996 (now 12/04/96) list of instances show factual changes and deletions between

0001 to 0022 listings with new December 18, 1996 No. 1 through 23 with added, uni-

dentified “exhibits” A through H, 1 and 3 through 10, exhibit 1 and petitioner's “exhibit 2,

Not Admitted”, as new records additions. More important fact is the deletion of appellant's

Tax Court ordered Brief and multiple exhibits which is listed on the November 20, 1996

list but IS NOT LISTED on the December 18, 1996 list to the Seventh Circuit Court.

This Brief from petitioners was dated April 11, 1996 and addressed to Judge Carluzzo

on his order in the February 16, 1996 Tax Court Trial. See Trial Transcript Pages No.,

44, line 1 through 45, line 24. Appellant has referenced the Seventh Circuit Court's

Rule 28(d) in these statements on facts (page 2 above). But under Rule 28(d)(1) and

(2), appellant must state the facts without argument or comment and give a fair sum-

mary and refemce page or pages or appendices in the record where a stated fact

appears. These many changes, deletions and unexplained disclosures as a “certified”,

supposedly true record, leaves appellant in an unfair and adversely disadvantaged

position; how can he know if the Appellate Court's disclosures compare with his records.

What must he reference and what document is pertinent? In this regard, appellant's

Stipulations descussed on Transcript pages 44 and 45 (above), is at Appendix L. Ref-

erences will be made necessary to submissions of renumbered and relisted docket

Entries by the Tax Court dated on December 18, 1996 to Mr. Thomas F. Strubbe, Clerk

of the Seventh Circuit Court. Reasons behind Tax-Court renumberings, relistings and

deletions between the November and December listings served on appellant are not

understood. Further, legal aspects that now exist with “tampered” document entries (if

such be the case) are further problems for the Seventh Circuit Court at this time. One

example; the Trial Transcript of great evidential value to appeliant in his charges of Trial

improprieties against Judge Carluzzo, was No. 8 on the November 20, 1996 and

the December 4, 1996 listings but is now entered as Document No. 11 on the

December 18, 1996 listing. Also, Trial Memorandums were moved from old 0007

to new Nos. 9-10. Also, Tax Court Indexing of the Trial Transcript is missing.

ERRONEOUS COMPUTATIONS; WILLIAM A. SELTZER (?)

Computations are discussed in Statements, page 2 above. Appellant's Appen-

dix D Enclosed July 10, 1996 letter with July 26, 1996 letter.

July 26,1996 Richard L./Betty L. Seltzer

Ref: Docket No. 25353-93, 4839 W Quail Run Drive

Seltzers v. Comm., IRS New Palestine, Indaina 46163

(317) 861-5182

United States Tax Court

Washington, D.C. 20217

Attn: Lewis R. Carluzzo, Special Trial Judge

We object to the Court's actions and lack of adjudicatory actions as evi-

denced in it's July 17, 1996 order that petitioners should file a notice of objection to

respondent's Rule 155 computation on or before August 16,1996. Foremost, we

did not ask for extension. We, on July 10,1996 returned all documents with mani-

fest errors and citing as petitioner a William A. Seltzer-1- to your Court. See En-

closer 1. We did ask for immediate advice on receipt of correct IRS computations

and Court documents so we could properly respond. We have nothing in hand to

respond to, as the Court states in above July 17, 1996 letter.

Our computations are before this Court in the record and transcript and

brief dated respectively April 14, 1994, February 16, 1995 (Enclosures 2 and 3)

and April 11, 1995. Despite our repetitive references to the IRS Code 4027-3 to

40276, Sections 72(d) through 72(f) as preponderant statutory evidence support-

ing our computations as 1989,1990 and 1991 repayments into CSRA annuity, this

Court adversely and unlawfully totally disregards such factual evidences. This is a

lack of adjudication, a loss of due process wrongfully withheld and a judicial lack of

ipartiality and fairness. Referenced T.C. Memo 1996-240 refers only to code

section 72(a) (on page 7) quoting only gross income which has little to do with

above sections 72(d) to (f) which relate to not-fully taxable income. See again

Encis. 2 and 3.

Rule 155(c) cites findings and conclusions on issues to be disposed of

before Rule 155 applies. Further, we have no IRS compoutations nor have we

recieved any corrected computations from either this Court or respondent. We

can NOT_RESPOND to something we do not have. We believe Rule 155 refer-

ence is premature without correct computations. This Court's order for a filing of

objections to non-existent computations by August 16, 1996 is meaningless. As

we asked in Encl. 1, we are waiting for this Court's response and additional find-

ings and conclusions on our April 11, 1995 Brief ordered by Judge Carluzzo as

well as issues we presented in Encls. 2 and 3, to respondent IRS.

Enclosures as stated. Copy to Chief Judge M. A. Cohen and respondent.

Richard L. Seltzer Betty L. Seltzer, wife

1. There is a William Seltzer in the Indianapolis phone book.

July 10, 1996 Richard L./Betty L/ Seltzer

4839 W. Quail Run Drive

Through: New Palestine, Indiana 46163

Mary Ann Cohen, Chief Judge (317) 861-5182

Clerk, U.S. Tax Court Ref: Tax Court Case 25353-93, Seltzers

400 Second Street, N.W. v. Commissioner of intemal Revenue.

Washington, D.C. 20217-0002

We are returning all documents dated July 5,1996 from the Court and dated July

1, 1996 from respondent because of manifest errors in the pages throughout.

Respondent's explanations of adjustments missing for year 1991

on schedule page 4A; unless 1991 total is now $1,563.00 instead of

$2,092.00, an amount we still do not agree with.

Social Security adjustments still do not reflect 1989-1991 repay-

ments of $6,268.00 on joint SSA Benefit Incomes of $12,500.00, on sched-

ule pages 3, 3A and 3B.

Computer print-out pages identified as “employee #3597920724

Page 002 of 002 PAGE 001, 4 each” are not understood as to reasons for

mailing to us without comments?

Responden't's computations here are not the same computa-

tions we returned to respondent as Rule 155 iss on June 24, 1996. See

our letter copy herewith (Exhibit 1).

Finally, all enteries titled “RESPONDENT'S COMPUTATION

FOR ENTRY OF DECISION" totalling 6 pages cite:

WILLIAM A. SELTZER

Petit

4839 W. Quail Run Drive

New Palestine , IN 45163

Tel. No. 317-861-5182

There is no William A. Seltzer at this address. Zip Code is 46163.

We ask for immediate advice from the Court. Will corrected information

be sent to us so we can to the with ice of Objecti

to sC CT ith ours?

We further ask the Court to cancel it's suspense date of July 26, 1996 for

any resultant action on our part pending the Court's reply to us on this matter.

Copy served on respondent this date by mail.

Richard L. Seltzer, Pro Se Betty L. Seltzer, wife

MEETING AT IRS OFFICE

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1994, 9:30A.M.

MR. RICHARD L. SELTZER-MS. C.M. ANSLINGER

Years of IRS Alleged Tax Deficiencies Discussed were 1989, 1990, 1991.

Authorities: Internal Revenue Code 4027-3/4027-6, Sections 72(d)-(f}

Employees Annuities and Recoverable Contributions.

Sec 72(d)--amounts recieved as annuity shall be excluded from the gross

income until excluded amount is equal to amount consideration contrib-

uted by an employee.

72(f)-- amounts paid directly to employee at time contributions of amounts

were made would not be includable in gross income.

IRS Regulation 1.212-1, Sec. 2005-2006-- Expenses for Production of

Income that are ordinary and neccessary including rent and manage-

ment of investment and property. Legal fees, associated costs, office/

home expenses were allowed for 1989, 1990 but not 1991.

1989- $1,193.00 1990-$915.00 1991- $2,757.00

Evidences in Irs Records/Letters for 1989, 1990 and 1991.

1989 1990 1991

$202.52 x 12= $2,430 (same) $2,430 (same) $2,430

$64.00 x 72= $4,608 $67.00 x 12= $804 (same) $804

$330.00 x 12= $3,960 (same) $3,960 $359.00 x 12=$4,302

$10,998 $431.00 x 6= $2,588 (same) $2,558

Civil Serv. Comm. $9,782 $10,124

Social Sec. Admin. x_.047 Cola x_.054 Cola

Military Service $10,242 $10,671

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.

Alleged IRS Taxes Due, Penalties as of 1991

1989- ($10,998) Tax(s)- $1,807/$1,980, Pen.- $547/$646

1990- ($10,242) Tax- $2,032, Pen.- $383

1991- ($10,671) Tax $2,332, Pen.- $184

STIPULATIONS, AUTHORITIES AND ISSUES IN EVIDENCES

U. S. TAX -COURT TRIAL FOR

DATE 16,1

Authorities and issues below include tax years 1989, 1990, and 1991and IRS cited

deficiencies for these years. Issues result from the proper and lawful income ex-

clusions and repayments, contributions or considerations in the Civil Service Re-

tirement Act (CSRA) Annuity and Social Security Administration Benefits. One

employer/agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is evident. Differ-

ent findings, orders and related evidential documents are from (1) the U.S. Su-

preme Court, (2) the U.S. Federal Appeals Courts (Wash., D.C.), (3) the U.S.

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), (4) the Social Securities Admin. and (5)

the U.S. Army.

Internal Revenue Authorities are quoted. IRS Code 4027-3/4027-6, Section 72

72d-— amounts recieved as annuity shall be excluded from the gross

income until excluded amount is equal to amount or consideration con-

tributed by employee.

72f- amounts paid directly to employee at time contributions of amounts

were made would not be included in gross income.

IRS _ Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxble Income; for use in preparing 1989,

1990 and 1991 Tax Returns. Repayments.

Year Payment Deducted. If you use cash method you can take the de-

duction for the tax year in which you actually make the repayment.

Repayments. If you repay, during your tax year, an amount included in

income in an earlier year with an unresticted night to it you can deduct the

amount repaid from your income for this year.

On Pensions ans Annuities That Are Not Fully Taxable: Lines 17a-17b, Instruc-

tions For Forms 1 1 1990 and 1991).

Lines 17a and 17b. If your pension or annuity is not fully taxable the

method used to figure the taxable part depends on annuity starting date

(before July 1, 1986). Once you have figured the taxable part of you

pension or annuity eater the total amount on line 17a and taxable part on

en ee ee

ee Ne, Se es

latina Os,

line 17b.

Major Issues in Contention.

$7,291 is disallowed, unfounded CSRA offset. $202.52 amounts. (36).

$4,080 is unfounded reduction. $88.69 amounts. 1983. (46).

$1,418 is unfounded offset for $412. (6). 1986

$27 and $37 unfounded SSA offsets from CSRA annuity. Continuing.

$51 unfounded offset ($1023 to $972). 1983

Total Refunds Ordered and Due From OPM. CSRA and MILLITARY CREDITS.

$12,789 (includes 7,291, 4,080, 1,418)

$13,712 (includes 27 and 37 SSA)

$6,268 (SSA Repayment)

$30,000 (retroactive on 216 days OPM approved but not included).

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Washington, D.C. 20217

RICHARD L. AND BETTY L. SELTZER, )

)

Petitioners; )

) Docket No.

) 25353-93

v. )

)

COMMISONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

On July 30, 1996, the Court recieved a letter dated July 26, 1996, from

petitioners. Upon due consideration, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court file, as of the date received, peti-

tioners’ July 26, 1996 letter, including the three enclosures attached to the letter,

as petitioners’ Rule 155 computation.

(signed) Lewis R Carluzzo

Lewis R Carluzzo

Special Trial Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.

f gust 1, 1996

Resubmitted June 7, 1996

Richard L./Betty L. Seltzer

4839 Quail Run Drive

Clerk New Palestine, Indiana 46163

U.S. Tax Court (317)861-5182

Washington, D.C. 20217-0002

Ref: Tax-Court Case (IRS No.)

25353-93, Seltzers v. Commissioner

Attn: Lewis R. Cariuzzo of IRS

Special Trial Judge

Washington, D.C.

Petitioners are in receipt of Your Honor’s Memorandum Opinion filed May 23, 1996,

received May 28th. Decision to be entered under Rule 155, Computation by Par-

ties for Entry of Decision. Petitioners specifically refer to last page 8 statements in

this Memorandum.

“Exclusions from income cannot be implied, but must be unambiguously proven--

This petitioners have failed to do. --petitioners have not called our attention to any

authority, and we know of none, that would permit them to exclude any poprtions of

petitioner's annuity distributions from their income for the years in issue.” Years

are 1989-1991.

The Court's Opinion is wrong. Petitioners’ Stipulations presented to the Court

during trial in Indi is on F 13, 1995, were reviewed by this J

Carluzzo and ordered into the petitioners’ April 11, 1995 Brief. The petitoners'

Brief has specially included these issues: (see Enclosures 1 and 2 herewith)

1. Brief page 2. OPM annuity offsets denied by the Federal Court of Ap-

als included $7,291.00 1,418.00 and $27 monthly for years 1989

1990 and 1991. The sum of $73,827 and references to these IRS consid-

erations as NON-CASH INVESTMENTS under Code 4027 (72e) AND

NON-TAXABLE AS REFUNDS.

2. Brief page 3. Differences between W2PAs and RI 20-53 Forms was

$12,225.00 (1989-1991). Respondent's figure is $13,844.90. Also proven,

$12,789, $13,712, $6,268 and $30,000 military service deposits for years

through 1991. Also, $88.69 monthly and $4,080 OPM offset.

3. All Brief pages from page 4 through 9 support petitioners’ many claims on

non-cash, multiple year after year unfounded offsets that were refunds

to the Cw Senvice SRA funds pa gp ome

DEDUCTIBLE LAWFUL REFUNDS TO THE CSRA OF $10,997.94,

10,242.00 AND $10,672.00 FOR 1989-1991.

Respondents was presented an exact copy of these stipulations seen and ordered

into Brief evidences by this Judge Carluzzo on February 13, 1995.(1) A complete

copy is attached herewith as word-for-word support of both IRS LAWS, RULES

AND FACTS and petitioners’ claims therein.

This Court and this Judge Carluzzo should rescind and reverse subject Memoran-

dum Opinion of May 23, 1996, and RE-REVIEW PETITIONERS’ EVIDENCES AS

STATED IN ATTACHED STIPULATED FACTS AND IRS AUTHORITIES.

Also, Social Security Administration monies ARE A PART OF THIS CASE; such

were increased for 1989-1991 by s Indi is IRS Office. SSA re-

funds of $6,268.00 against 1989-1991 incomes of over $12,500.00 income were

NON-CASH REFUNDS TO THE SSA FUNDS. See Forms-1099 Enclosures 3-1

and 3-2.

Enclosures: Respectufully,

1. Brief (4/11/95).

2. Petitioners’ Stipu-

lations (2/13/95). Richard L. Seltzer, Pro Se.

3. SSA Forms-1099 (2)

Betty L. Seltzer

(1) Stipulations presented to this Judge and his order and com-

ments regarding Brief are shown in the Official Court Reporter's

Transcript page 43, line 2 through page 45, line 23. This Judge

Carluzzo ordered EXCERPTS NOT THE COMPLETE ENCLO-

SURES NOW HEREWITH AS ENCL. 2.

ieeneidinmmnanimeanaeatt iene

June 18, 1996 Richard L./Betty L. Seltzer

4839 W. Quail Run Drive

New Palestine, Indiana 46163

(317) 861-5182

Chief Judge

U.S. Tax Court Ref: Tax-Court Case (IRS No.)

Washington, D.C. 20217-0002 25353-93, Seltzers v. Commis-

sioner of IRS.

Your Honor:

We seemingly have been ill served by your Court. We complied with the Court's

request for extra enclosures with our resubmitted Computation(s) under the Court's

Rule 155(b), dated June 7, 1996. A copy was received by us dated as filed on

June 12, 1996 with words “AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION" added by the

Court; further another stamp at bottom of page citing “DENIED” on June 12, 1996

(same date) with words “(signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo” added by the Court.

We have, in good faith, complied with Rule 155(b), citing specific repayment amounts

made to OPM by us in 1989, 1990 and 1991 by again resubmitting factual evi-

dences of dollar amounts, periods and documents in preponderant support of our

claims of Tax Court errors of oversights of such evidences and particu lary lack of

adjudicated review. We further showed facts of improprieties of the sitting Judge

(L.R. Carluzzo) as shown by the transcript. So far in this case, the same Judge

Carluzzo has denied review of such evidences and seemingly herein has also (out

of hand) denied review of our submission under Rule 155(b) which IS NOT A

“MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.”

We request an unbiased and complete review of our resubmission with preponder-

ant facts of errors and oversights by your Court. We have absolutely no idea nor

reason of understanding what the unsigned and stamped “DENIAL” means. De-

nial of what?

Respectufully,

Richard L. Seltzer, Pro Se Betty L. Seltzer, wife

September 6, 1996 Richard L./Betty L. Seltzer

4839 W. Quail Run Drive

U.S. Tax Court New Palestine, Indiana 46163

400 Second Street, N.W. (317) 861-5182

Washington, D.C. 20217-0002

Through Chief Judge May Ann Cohen

To: Lewis R. Carluzzo, Speical Trial Judge

We are in receipt of your August 30, 1996 Decision stating in part “~Rule 155

computations and incorporating herein the facts recited in repondent's computa-

tions as the findings of the Court--". Underlinings added.

There are no Rule 155 computations existing that were either correctly or partially

submitted to either the Court or to us, by respondent in this case. To the contrary

as the Court knows, we returned the incomplete and wrong fiqures sent us by

respondent to respondent. We also retumed to the Court (yourself) the totally

wrong and baseless Rule 155 computations with our July 26, 1996 letter and en-

closures. Another copy is herewith. Note the Encl. 1 errors cited.

The Court (yourself) has improperly and with insufficient facts, evidences or adju-

dication issues a knowingly wrong decision. We expect immediate recall of this

decision that was totally outside of the specific authority of Rule 155 conditions on

computations form case parties. We complied to the best of our ability; respon-

dent has not done so. The Court is negligent in not recogninzing improprieties as

noted in our enclosures herewith.

Sir, we are being unduly harassed by these untenable and continuing Court “er-

rors” we must content with. We expect recall of your August 30, 1996 decision as

defective at best.

Enclosures as stated.

Richard L. Seltzer, Pro Se

(for wife Betty also)

Copy (less encl.) to respondent.

FORM SSA-1 AL SECURITY BENEFIT STATEMENT _

1993 : * PART OF YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOWN IN BOX S$ MAY BE TAXABLE ‘NCOME

* SEE THE REVERSE FOR MORE ‘NFORMATION

Box! Name | Ber 2 Benencary 5 Sos Securty Murer

RICHARD L SELTZER | 299-10-2606

Bos } Genents Pag 1993 | Box 4 Benems Repad to SSA 1983 | Goxd Net Sevens to 99) far ) reas Bos +.

*810, 324.80 66,084 60 64. 240.20

’ OESCRIPTION OF AMOUNT IN BOX 3 | OCRSCRIPTION OF AUNT IN BOX 6

Paid by check or Deductions for work or

direct deposit $3,801.00 owner adjustsents 66.084 60

Medicare presiuves paid |

for you $439.20

Geductions for work or

other justeents $6,084 60

Total ations $10,324.80

Benefits for 1993 $10, 324.80

| Bor $ Agcrens !

| RICHARD \ SELTZER

| 4839 J QUAIL RUN OR

MEW PALESTINE IN 46163-9641 |

Ber’ Caer “asnber Lee rus uenoe

6 Tet we comms SSA |

| *INCLUOES

gt2.08 paid in 1993 - 1992

$12.00 paid in 19923 for 1991

eis-08 Bet in ives oe

i -10-

$37.00 other tax years 399-10-2606a

Form SSA-1080-Sid (| -94) OO NOT RETURN Thas FORM TO SBA OF IRS

FORM SSA-1099-SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT STATEMENT

19 * PART OF YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOWN iN 4 $ MAY BE TAXABLE NCOME

* SEE THE REVERSE FOR MORE NFORMATION

Bos 2 Berennary 1 Seow Seat unos

Go: | Name

BETTY . SELTZER | 278 -24-4635

eeadaintninetnaett

Bor } Berens Pac ~ 1993 Box 4 Serems Renee 0 SSA 7 '983 | Gos S Net Benen ‘or OR) Bar | -wes der +

*62.178.00 $183.60 81. 994.40

OESCRIPTION OF AMOUNT Im BOX 3 i DESCRIPTION OF AMOUNT In BOX 4

Paid by check or | Deductions for work or

direct deposit 61.665.00, otner adjusteents $182 40

Recicare preaives paid |

for you 6329. 40 |

Oeductions for work or

otner usteents $183.60 |

Total ations 62.178.00 | |

| Benefits for 1993 62,178.00

}

| bo. 6 Acareee

GETTY

4839 wu

_ mew TIME IN 46163-9641

Bon” Can euroe Les he Toe

| ‘

399-10-26068

*(NCLUOES

$12.00 paid in 1993 for 1992 |

DO NOT RETURN ThaS FORM TO SSA OR IRS

Form SSA-1088-Sas || 64)

Brief cont'd., Seltzers v. IRS, Case 25353-93

THE WITNESS: “Yes”. This isn't true. The 1989 Notice of Annuity Adjustment for

payment dated 01/01/89 shows new status in gross monthly annuity as 1089.00.

Total for 1989 on this notice received by petitioners on December 12, 1988, is to be

$13,068.00 and net payment is 868.56 X 12 = $10,422.72, not the total $11,111.28

shown on respondent's Trial Exhibit |. See Enclosures 1 and Exhibits 6 and 10.

Between 1983 and 1988 these “differences” between the W2PAs and the

RI 20-53 Forms totalled for the years is $12,225.00. Even respondent's

figure carried through 1991 totals oa page 4 of respondent's Trial Memo-

randum is $13,844.90. In effect, respondent's own witness Smith contra-

dicts these amounts on transcript page 85 to the Court.

Distriburbing also is the untruth of this same witness to the Court as stated

on transcript page 86: “Yes, initially the Board (MSPB) instructed us to

return the total of these deductions (the $7,291) to him.” (Court) “What

was the ultimate disposition of that 7291, the refund?” A. “A subsequent

order from the Merit Systems Protection Board rescinded that so we did

not refund the money.” There was not an MSPB rescission of the $7,291.00

issue of overpayment collections for 36 months at $202.52 monthly through

1989. OPM ingnored MSPB and Federal Court orders on refunds of the

$7,291 and SSA $27 issues until two partial payments were made of $2060

in 1992 and $1033 in 1993, both of which were again included in Gross

Income as reported to IRS on the W2PA forms for these years. THESE

WERE REFUNDED PARTIAL AMOUNTS ON TOTALS COLLECTED,

OFFSET AND REDUCED FROM ANNUITY AS FOLLOWS (cited in Con-

ference-Matters Brief dated January 17, 1995 and Tax-Court Trial Memo-

randum dated February 13, 1995):

(1). $12,789 (incl. 7,291, 4,080, 1,418) Partial $2,060 (1992).

(2). $13,712 (27.00 and 37.00 issues) Partial $1,033 (1993).

(3). $6,268 (SSA Benefits repaid)

(4). $30,000 (216 days, $330.00 approved/credited military service)

Military Service credits can be contributed or deposited toward

the annuity at any time before or after retirement.

The sums above, OPM generated as overpayment collections computed

retroactively to 1983 except for the $4,080 ($88.69 monthly offset) made

to 1974. Petitioners’ Exhibit 3, OPM letters dated December 21, 1989

and October 12, 1989 show these unfoundend and unlawtul collections

of unproven overpayments. All these overpayments collections were made by

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.