Time: Mon Feb 17 14:01:46 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA08286;
	Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:44:20 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:59:35 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Under Protest" on tax returns

                           Tax Report
                                
                     The Wall Street Journal
                                
                   Wednesday, January 19, 1994
                                
                        Vol. CXXX No. 13
                                
                                
     TWO WORDS lead to a courtroom battle between a tax protester
and the IRS.

     Do you  have a right to protest when filing your federal tax
return?   That was the question in a recent case pitting Lawrence
P. McCormick  of Brooklyn,  N.Y., against the IRS.  Mr. McCormick
filed his  1991 return on April 15, 1992.  Beneath his signature,
he wrote  "under protest."   The IRS refused to accept the return
and charged  him penalties  for a  frivolous filing  and  a  late
return.

     But U.S.  District Court  Judge Jack B. Weinstein sided with
Mr.  McCormick.     "A   taxpayer  need   not  suffer  in  silent
acquiescence to  a perceived  injustice," the  judge wrote.   Mr.
McCormick didn't  change the meaning of anything on the return by
adding those  two words  of  protest.    Instead,  Mr.  McCormick
"properly exercised  his first  amendment right to protest" while
still complying  with his obligation to file a timely tax return,
the judge  said.   A protest  is  "an  expression  of  grievance,
seeking  redress  that  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  may  not
throttle or mute by threats of penalties."


Comments by Paul Mitchell:

The term "Under Protest" is recognized
in the U.C.C. as a valid and sufficient
reservation of all Rights not previously
waived.  Without reading the court's 
opinion in this case, I cannot tell whether
the court understood the true meaning of
this phrase, or not.  It is delightful
to see that the phrase passes constitutional
muster solely on the strength of the
First Amendment.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0 on Intel 80586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail