Gregory T. Christian, Plaintiff
v.
United States of America /
Internal Revenue Service,
Defendant
Pursuant to 28 USC 636(b)(1)(C) and FRCP 72(b) Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Cato’s endorsement, filed June 22, 2006, delivered June 30, of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and in opposition avers the following-
Summary:
Defendant IRS found fault with plaintiff’s somewhat crankish 1998 tax return
and proceeded to cook the books to the tune of a couple thousand percent,
give or take. The funds thereupon seized constituting a rather substantial
sum for such as us trash, plaintiff has by what grace of patience and turn
of phrase as providence bestows pursued recovery for three years so far.
Introduction:
For purposes of clarification, and lest the court think otherwise, Plaintiff
does not seek to compel government adherence to the Constitution1, but seeks
only that plaintiff not be silent party to its plain and ongoing violation.
To summarize (plaintiff prays within the bounds of indulgence), there are
two kinds of people- the Go Along/Get Alongs (GAGAs), and the Do The Right
Thingers (DTRTs). Needless to say, the GAGAs have always substantially outnumbered
the DTRTs, but the DTRTs, acting on a basis other than naked self interest
(presumably because of some genetic defect), have slowly, very slowly, bit
by bit, stone by heavy stone, despite the sacrifice to themselves and against
the hulking self interested lethargy of the GAGAs built society into the impressive
illusion of order and civility we see today. This, it please the court, is
the crux of the present biscuit.
Specific Objections:
Plaintiff examines Magistrate Catoe’s analysis in approximate sequence.
1. Magistrate Catoe finds that, per defendant’s assertion, plaintiff “On or about April 17, 1999” mailed to the IRS a document “purporting to be a 1998 income tax return”. It might have been a Romulan code book, but one more time, and with feeling, Plaintiff’s 1998 income tax return was mailed, as attested to by every copy submitted by both plaintiff and defendant, on April FOURTEENTH, which is to say in a timely fashion. For what it was worth. Plaintiff looks forward to repeating this any number of times more.
2. Defendant IRS avers, and Magistrate Catoe repeats, “The IRS relied on data provided to it by third parties” in preparing a “substitute” for plaintiff’s tax return. In fact, no. This is a fictional propriety maintained throughout by defendant and endorsed by the magistrate, apparently reluctant to reflect ill on his fellow employees. As elaborated upon by plaintiff in filings by now spanning three years and two suits at law, Defendant threw out an entirely sufficient tax return and proceeded to engage in an egregious act of accounting theft, plaintiff’s forlorn, repeated, piteous protestations notwithstanding. Just to clarify that.
3. In a similar vein, plaintiff has to mention Magistrate Catoe’s reference
to a “miscellaneous penalty”,2 such apparently being more palatable than a
“maliciously pig-pilled without the slightest fear of civil or criminal consequence”
penalty.
4. On page 5 of his endorsement of summary judgment, Magistrate Catoe cites
as precedent a case involving “conscientious religious objections”
to war. Such precedent does not bear upon the present case, as an examination
of plaintiff’s filings with the court will show that plaintiff grounds
his position in law rather than morality, and indeed would not seek to foist
any such maudlin abstraction upon the government.
5. In a footnote on page 5 of his endorsement of summary judgment, Magistrate
Catoe states plaintiff accepts all but $21.12 of plaintiff’s 1998 tax
liability, but that plaintiff “set forth no facts and evidence in support
of his position.” In fact several pages of it, but per long established
protocol magistrate Catoe fails to note a single solitary precedent cited
or argument offered by plaintiff.3 Rather than write it out twice,
plaintiff directs the court to plaintiff’s opposing brief.
6. On page 6 of his report, Magistrate Catoe determines plaintiff liable for
a 25% penalty for negligent failure to file. As detailed in plaintiff’s
opposing brief, plaintiff maintains otherwise, but just to get the numbers
on the table here, 25% of $1514.76 is $379.69. For the record, $5,835.50 is
more. And not to get shrill about it, but a lot more. 1,441% more, to put
a figure on it.
7. In analyzing plaintiff’s presumed failure to pay estimated tax on
expected income, Magistrate Catoe fails to mention Plaintiff’s argument
concerning the matter, and thus plaintiff cites it by reference. Plaintiff’s
avers there is no “expected income” from future capital gains
(or losses) (past performance being no guarantee of future earnings), and
consequently plaintiff has never been held liable for prepaying tax on future
capital gains (or losses). Plaintiff cannot in this instance readily demonstrate
a negative, but defendant could certainly provide some scintilla of evidence
to the contrary if it existed. Whether plaintiff’s future capital gains
(or losses) constituted “expected income” is a question of fact
by right triable before a jury, yada yada yada, but since the court will presumably
endorse defendant’s claim that plaintiff failed to pay estimated tax
on expected future capital gains (or losses), plaintiff thinks it important
to note that, believe it or not, defendant and magistrate Catoe again got
the math wrong, this time by ... oh, a thousand percent, somewhere in there.
They used the wrong basis. Again. Or still. Whatever. Hopefully we can straighten
it out post judgment.
Closing:
The Supreme Court having recently made it somewhat trendy to meaningfully stand
up to the executive, plaintiff makes the hopeful suggestion that now might be
a propitious time to lean meaningfully in that direction. Plaintiff at least
opens the door. More realistically, in at last awarding plaintiff nearly all
of the sum sought over the years, albeit without recovery of the filing fees,
plaintiff thinks it would be a nice gesture for the court to at least make some
passing mention of defendant’s relentless, indifferent rapacity in this
matter.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that service of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE AND OBJECTIONS TO REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE has this 11th day of July, 2006 been made via hand delivery upon Defendant's counsel of record:
George J. Conits
Assistant US Attorney for the District of South Carolina
105 N. Spring St., Suite 200
Greenville, SC 29601
______________________________________
Gregory T. Christian/Plaintiff