# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Seltzer v. Commissioner

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386013_2115%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1998
- **Citation:** 522 U.S. 1119

## 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

V.

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.)

:s

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.

ee

-ii-

EE

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
V.
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

a:

(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).:

2.

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.

es

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-

x7

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.

he

b.

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:
Lp

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).

Ss

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.

id

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.

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:

1.

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
? : ;* ’ . . ‘
tioa sss toons wauitase | statv® | sett a | ds EsBo* | wewets | oc” -8 eee S* es
sare 28 opt e ee 2 } m7 | souese a ee oe
2 wo mr ire 4o mr | cues | somrenenr | eters | cones | conte | ENTE | OR Ce Dare cme Te BAA
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.

Bl

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.

B2

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.

B3

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.

B4

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.

Cl

|

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.

C2

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.

C3

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.

C4

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.

pa

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.

C5

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.

D1

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: ~
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
© 090000 00 0000-200 00:99. fe it’ -.v +. CO-¥3 w- om

e Fad sive mest InnOmy wO119N038 eo 1$0d 1NO9
l P 9

59 Wee Om - a pore ogg bh ~lAzd 2p

ar

Ly $ 2//7 rr

<> eee ores er Tt er rt ree <snee Coa ue sovem wonivewe
ey
——— 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)

E3

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
Fl

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

F2

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

F3

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-

Gl

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

G2

|
|
|

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

G3

0118780

April 17 27

PAYTOTHE nent. of the Treasury * Internal Revenues Service *¢** 43,405.46 sees
7. —

ORDER OF
ee newens © 6 hewn Gat wor be eEreS Se ee ee ee ee

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

2

70818779" #04 24088908: 6 25"0980 3"

G4

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

H1

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.

H2

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.
I]

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
12

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
13

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
14

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).

15

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

Kl

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
yoy joo © coramcr SS4
| ‘
|
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.

d.

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

M

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386013_2115%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.