# Reply Brief — Tinkoff v. Campbell > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_1157%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1947 - **Citation:** 331 U.S. 845 ## Text ff ee rile COPy yup JUN 6 1947 | CHARLES ELMORE GROPLEY CLERK IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Paysorr TinKorr, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, | vs. No. 1263. Nice, D. Campset, etc., e¢ al., Defendant-A ppellee. APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF. Paysorr Trnkorr, Pro Se, 6353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, Plammtiff-Appellant. Phone Hol. 5533-4 UNITED STATES LAW PRINTING CO., PHONE LAKEVIEW 6581, CHICAGO. ILL INDEX. PAGE I. Failure of Appellee to Directly Answer Questions Raised Herein 1-4 II. The Appellant’s Constitutional Rights of Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness Have Been Violated .... 4-6 III. Other Matters Raised by Appellant, Not Waived Herein ........ . 67 IV. Conclusion .. AUTHORITIES AND CITATIONS. Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567.... Ree PP 2 Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers Co-Op Marketing Ass’n, 276 U. S. 71, 97... 5 Matthews v. People, 202 Ill. 389, 401-000 6 Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399... 5,6 Munn y. Illinois, 94 U. 8. (4 Otto) 113; 24 L. Ed. 77, SO idethistalicelbas raped i ek Se ee 5 Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 615.. 2,3 So. Pac. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 38 Fed. 55, 57............... 2,3 West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379, 392... 5 Sec. 322, Internal Revenue Code.. 2 ee eee eel | ae IN THE Supreme Court of the United States } Paysorr TrnKorr, ) ‘Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. No. 1263. NiceL D. CaMPBELL, etc., et al., Defendant-Appellee. . APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF. ) Now comes Paysoff ‘Tinkoff, appearing pro se, and does herewith file his Reply Brief to the Brief of the Appellee in opposition, filed in this Court. I, Failure of Appellee to Directly Answer the Questions Raised Herein. A careful reading of the Appellee’s Brief, in the opinion ’ of the Appellant, shows that the Appellee has failed to spe- ance teneertee neemt 2 cifically answer the principal contention of the Appellant that a ‘‘Taxpayer’’ is a person, separate and distinct from a ‘‘Claimant’’, and that the two words as used in the In- ternal Revenue Code, and also in the Act of July 7, 1884, and in Circular 230, are not similar and interchangeable; and further that Appellant’s constitutional rights have been grossly violated. The Appellant has shown that this Court in the case of Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. 8S. 567 held that ‘‘a claim is a right to demand money from the United States,’’ and a Claimant must be a person who is the possessor of that right. A Taxpayer has no right to demand money from the United States, but his duty is to pay money to the United States pursuant to Statute. A Taxpayer becomes a Claimant only when the Taxpayer has overpaid the taxes lawfully due from the Taxpayer to the Government, and filed a Claim for Refund on Form 843, and other documents seeking its return and recovery, pur- suant to the administrative provisions of the Internal Rev- enue Code, Sec. 322, and the Regulations promulgated there- under. The Appellee on pages 9 and 10 of his Brief says that the word ‘‘Claim’’ is sometimes used in a broad sense, and is not always limited to ‘‘claims for the return of money,”’ citing Prigg v. Penna., 16 Pet. 539, 619; So. Pac. R. R. Co. v. U.'S., 3 8Fed. 55, 56. oe Tin eR A SY 3 This Court in the case of Prigg v. Penna. in 16 Pet. 539, on page 615, says: ‘‘What is a claim? It is, in a just juridical sense, a demand of some matter as of right made by one per- son upon another, to do or to forbear to do some act or thing as a matter of duty.’’ The Court in the case of So. Pac. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 38 Fed. 55, on page 57, said: ‘*Indeed, money demands, except perhaps in the Treasury Department, constitute but a small fraction of the ‘claims’ or ‘matters’ pending in the Executive Department.’’ (Italics supplied.) In this case, the Court specifically said that in the Treasury Department ‘‘a claim is a money demand,’’ when the Court said ‘‘Indeed, money demands, except perhaps in the Treas- ury Department”’ constitute a small fraction of the claims, in other Executive Departments. The Appellant admits that a ‘‘claim’’ can inelude a right for the return of property, as well as the return of money, as stated in the cases aforementioned: but the word ‘‘Claim- ant,’’ as used in the Act of July 7, 1884, empowering the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations re- garding attorneys and agents representing ‘‘claimants,’’ can only mean ‘‘one who has overpaid monies to the United States Treasury in excess of that lawfully due the United States Treasury.’” ' Therefore, the Secretary of the Treasury has jurisdiction over representatives of ‘‘Claimants’’, seeking return of re- funds from the United States Treasury; and has no juris- diction over ‘‘Taxpayers”’ or their representatives, when seeking to show that their tax return, as filed, is true and correct. a 4 I. The Appellant’s Constitutional Rights of Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness Have Been Violated. The Appellee has wholly ignored the Appellant’s con- tention that his constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Consitution, to-wit, ‘No person shall be * * * deprived of life, liberty or property without j due process of law’’; and that ‘‘life, liberty and the pursuit } of happiness are inalienable rights guaranteed by the Dec- : laration of Independence.’’ The record shows that Appellant’s contracts have been breached by the various Taxpayers, due to threats and statements made to the Taxpayers by the Appellee—the Collector of Internal Revenue—and that the Taxpayer’s present vocation as a ‘‘Tax Accountant’’ is one guaran- teed by the Constitution of the United States, and is not subject to regulation, State or Federal, as not being af- fected with public interest; and that the Appellant’s busi- ness, as a ‘“T'ax Accountant”’, has been and is greatly im- ) paired, due to the conduct and acts of the Appellee; and that Appellant has been unable to enforce his contracts with the Taxpayers, because the Appellee specifically denies the Appellant the right to represent the Taxpayers,—before the Office of the Collector—solely to show that the Tax- payers’ Tax Return, as filed, is true and correct. —_—_ a The Appellant’s right to use his faculties to make a living, and to support his family and himself, has been greatly impaired by the acts of the Appellee; and if such acts of Appellee are continued, Appellee will be deprived of his opportunity to use his faculties to earn a livelihood, Mc of violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of ’ 5 the United States, that ‘‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.’’ This Court, in the case of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. (4 Otto) 113; 24 L. Ed. 77, on page 90, in the Dissent of Mr. Justice Field, in defining liberty, says as follows: ‘‘By the term ‘liberty,’ as used in the provision, something more is meant than mere freedom from physical restraint or the bounds of a prison. It means freedom to go where one may choose, and to act in such manner, not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, as his judgment may dictate for the promotion of his happiness; that is to pursue such callings and avocations as may be most suitable to develop his ca- pacities, and give to them their highest enjoyment.’’ (Italics supplied.) This Court in the case of West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379, on page 392 said: ‘Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and pro- hibitions imposed in the interest of the community.’’ This Court in the case of Liberty Warehouse Company v. Burley Tobacco Growers Co-Op Marketing Association, 276 U. S. 71, on page 97, said: ‘‘The liberty of contract guaranteed by the Consti- tution is freedom from arbitrary restraint—not im- munity from reasonable regulation to safeguard the . public interest.’’ (Italics supplied.) This Court in the case of Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, on page 399, said: ‘‘Without doubt, it (meaning liberty) denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage im any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up 6 children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privi- leges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’’ (Italics supplied.) The Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Matthews v. People, 202 Ill. 389, on page 401, said: ‘