STATE OF WISCONSIN
TAX APPEALS COMMISSION
GARY AND JOAN PANSIER
N6755 Loop Lake Road
Crivitz, WI 54114-8420
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
P.O. Box 8907
Madison, WI 53708-8907
|DOCKET NO. 00-I-137
RULING AND ORDER
This case comes before the Tax Appeals Commission ("Commission") on the motion of respondent Wisconsin Department of Revenue ("Department"), filed on May 24, 2001, to dismiss petitioners' petition under Wis. Stat. § 805.03, on the basis that petitioners have failed to prosecute their appeal.
Petitioner Gary Pansier represents both petitioners and has filed a written objection to the motion. Attorney Neal E. Schmidt represents the Department and has filed an affidavit, exhibits, and brief along with its motion.
Having considered the entire record, the Commission finds, rules, and orders as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Under date of November 22, 1999, the Department issued an estimated assessment to petitioners for tax years 1995 through 1998 in the amount of $46,609.59 ($27,977.00 income tax, $11,518.34 interest, $6,994.25 negligence penalty, and $120.00 fees). The assessment was issued pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 71.74(3), based on petitioners' failure to file Wisconsin income tax returns for those years.
2. Petitioners' former representative, Gene Bridges, of Billings, Montana, filed a two-page document with the Department on December 21, 1999, which the Department deemed a petition for redetermination.
3. Under date of June 6, 2000, the Department denied the petition for redetermination, whereupon petitioners filed a timely appeal to this commission.
4. In a September 11, 2000 notice, the Commission scheduled an October 24, 2000 telephone conference and instructed petitioners' representative to inform the Commission of his telephone number at which he would participate in the conference. He did not comply. For this reason, the conference was rescheduled for November 14, 2000.
5. Petitioners' representative participated in the November 14, 2000 telephone conference. At the conference, petitioners' representative indicated that petitioners would file a motion for summary judgment. The Commission's Scheduling Order Memorandum of that telephone conference stated:
Petitioners shall file an original and 3 copies of their motion for summary judgment, brief, and supporting papers, with a copy of each to respondent, no later than January 19, 2001. Respondent's response brief and supporting papers shall be filed and served no later than March 23, 2001. Petitioner's reply shall be filed and served no later than April 27, 2001.
Petitioners did not comply with this order.
6. In a letter filed with the Commission on January 22, 2001, Gene Bridges withdrew his representation of petitioners.
7. In an August 2, 2000 letter to the Department's chief counsel, petitioners sent two sworn affidavits "which deny the existence of the" Department. They demand an answer within 5 days of receipt. If no answer is timely made, they demand that the Department release tax warrants filed against their property.
8. In a September 7, 2000 letter to the Department's chief counsel, among other things, petitioners declare the tax warrants against their property void; declare the Department nonexistent; assert that the Depart-ment's assessment against them is void; and state that the Department is "acting as [their] alien enemy."
9. In a May 10, 2001 notice, the Commission notified the parties of a telephone conference scheduled for May 22, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. Petitioners could not be reached by telephone at that time to participate. During the telephone conference, the Department stated that it planned to file a dispositive motion. A briefing schedule was established.
10. On May 24, 2001, the Department filed its motion to dismiss petitioners' petition for review for failure of the petitioners to prosecute their appeal, along with supporting documents and a brief.
11. Petitioners' reply to the Department's motion was filed with the Commission on June 11, 2001 and consists of a 3-page document captioned "Affidavit of Gary Lee Pansier." Among other things, the affidavit states, at least 13 times, that Mr. Pansier is a "living, breathing" person; that when he files an affidavit with the Department or its representatives and demands a reply within a specified period, if no reply is made, the affidavit is deemed true; that "the municipal corporation 'United States' has created the artificial entity of GARY L. PANSIER, and the STATE OF WISCONSIN, as a subsidiary municipal corporation, and one of the several state republics . . . [were created] to regulate its corporate creations ONLY;" and that he does not owe the tax which the Department has assessed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Petitioners have failed to prosecute the appeal they filed with this commission.
2. Petitioners' position in this matter is frivolous and ground-less, thereby subjecting them to an additional assessment under Wis. Stat. § 73.01(4)(am).
Because petitioners did not file Wisconsin income tax returns for 1995 through 1998, the Department issued an estimated assessment under Wis. Stat. § 71.74(3).
Petitioners have responded with a series of statements that do not address the assessment. They try setting the rules for the Department by stating that everything in their affidavits is true unless responded to by the Department within a specified number of days. When the Department does not respond, they declare everything in their affidavits as true. In this way, they claim to deny the Department itself as a valid legal entity; void the Department's assessment against them; and nullify tax warrants the Department has filed against their property.
Petitioners' actions attempt, by verbal chicanery and gymnastics, to replace the Wisconsin Statutes with rules they invent. This is absurd.
Wisconsin Statutes § 71.02(1) provides, in part, that "there shall be assessed, levied, collected and paid a tax on all net incomes of individuals . . . residing within the state . . . ." Wisconsin Statutes § 71.74(3) provides, "Any person required to file an income . . . tax return, who fails, neglects or refuses to do so . . . shall be assessed by the department according to its best judgment."
Petitioners did not file Wisconsin income tax returns for 1995 through 1998. Therefore, as authorized by § 71.74(3), the Department issued an assessment to petitioners for these years according to its best judgment.
Because petitioners have offered nothing but groundless, frivolous arguments to disprove the Department's assessment, an additional assessment is imposed as provided in Wis. Stat. § 73.01(4)(am).
1. The Department's motion for an order dismissing the petition for review on the basis that petitioners have failed to prosecute their appeal is granted, and the petition for review is dismissed.
2. Petitioners are assessed an additional $500 pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 73.01(4)(am).
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 20th day of August, 2001.
WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION
Don M. Millis, Acting Chairperson
Thomas M. Boykoff, Commissioner
ATTACHMENT: "NOTICE OF APPEAL INFORMATION"
September 20, 2001 Petition for rehearing denied under § 227.49(3)