STATE OF MINNESOTA TAX COURT

____________________________________________________________________________ JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Tax Court Docket No. 8327-S Appellant, Appeal Brief and Statement regarding the Commissioners denial of access to all v. process, investigation, reconsideration, or determination, with no disclosure of COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, the current Tax Code Statute of Authority, Appellee. in violation of the Tax Payer Bill of Rights. ____________________________________________________________________________ APPEAL BRIEF or PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT APPELLANT NOT LIABLE FOR TAX FRAUD OR TAX EVASION DEFRAUD CLAIM FOR 2009 RENT REBATE By authority of the Minnesota Taxpayer Bill of Rights, it is uncontested that APPELLANT, Joshua J. Israel, was denied his right of access to a Repealed & Replaced Tax Code, and denied access to statutory administrative re-consideration, so as to defend against a tax evasion fraud scheme that has been imposed upon Appellant. Since the Minnesota

Legislature repealed and replaced the Minnesota Tax Code, and since Appellant could not locate the current Tax Code, a tax due assessment has been enforced upon Appellant without affording Appellant his rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Therefore, Appellant must seek relief from an unlawful tax assessment because the Minnesota Tax Court can grant equitable relief when Minnesota Revenue Statutes have granted numerous powers to the Commissioner of Revenue, and the Commissioner has refused to use them; therefore, to appeal for an opportunity to be heard against an unlawful tax assessment, Appellant states as follows: JURISDICTION and VENUE 1. At the election of Appellant, jurisdiction of this Tax Court [Small Claims Division] is founded upon Minn. Stat. 272.21(2)(b) where this individual tax return controversy does Not involve matters of real or property valuation, real or property assessment, or real or property

taxation that exceeds $5000.00, including penalties and interest. In addition, the Venue of this Tax Court is obtained from statewide jurisdiction over state tax revenue matters, where this tax appeal issue occurred in Scott County, Minnesota. STATEMENT OF EXHIBITS 2. Appellant certifies that the exhibit documents described herewith are a true and accurate copy of authentic documents that are issued to Appellant from the employer, that were issued and received from the property manager at the time weekly rent was paid; and, that the other documents were drafted or written or completed and processed by the Appellant, during all transactions with said property manager, so as to comply with tax code administration. The exhibits are designated as TP so as to reference Tax Payer, and the number begins at TP-3 because Appellant has served previous documents for consideration by the Tax Court.
*(TP-3) is a weekly paid receipt from the rental property management, and the upper right hand corner of this receipt (Arrival) dates back to July 2007: *(TP-4) is a copy of year 2008 and 2009 W-2 Wage and Tax Statements from the employer: *(TP-5) is a copy of year 2010 W-2 Wage and Tax Statement from the employer: *(TP-6) is a copy of year 2010 Certificate of Rent Paid (CRP) that was completed and filed by the Appellant, after discovery of entitlement thereto: *(TP-7) is a copy of the 2010 M1PR Property Tax Refund completed and filed for 2010 Tax Return.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND HISTORY 3. From the 1st day of January, 2009, until December 31, 2009, the Appellant, Joshua J. Israel was residing in a rental studio unit, at Sandalwood Suites & Studios, at the address of XXXX XXth xxx. xxx, xxxxxx, xx xxxx; and additionally, Appellant did pay weekly rent at Sandalwood at a rate of $200.00 per week, for the 52 weeks of the year 2009 (TP-3). 4. In addition, from the 1st day of January, 2009, until December 31, 2009, the Appellant was employed at Pierson Pizza, dba Dominos, at the address of 224 First Ave. East, Shakopee,
2

MN 55379; and additionally, at the time of 2007 employment, IRS Tax Withholding Forms were completed, and the employer did properly withhold and deduct 2007 taxes at the source of income (IFP = In Forma Pauperis, Appeal Exhibit = A-1). 5. Moreover, on December 31, 2009, the owner and managing agent of Sandalwood property, Dipak Patel and Dash Patel, knowingly refused to issue to Appellant the required Certification of Rent Paid (CRP), so that Appellant could claim his Rent Rebate for rent paid during the 2009 year; and additionally, Dash and Dipak Patel knowingly defrauded Appellant out of his Rent Rebate for the past (8) eight years of residency at Sandalwood. 6. Thereafter, on the 28th day of January, 2010, employer Pierson Pizza, dba Dominos, did issue the W-2 tax withholding report for the year 2009, and said employer did leave box two completely [
blank

] and reported that no tax was deducted or withheld; therefore, since

Appellant could not determine if tax was withheld, or what tax should have been deducted and reported, Appellant was coerced to become an unwilling participant in the employers tax fraud scheme. In response, Appellant refused such participation and made a

Whistleblower disclosure to Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (MCOR) by attaching said disclosure to the 2009 M1 Tax Return (IFP Appeal Exhibit, Appeal To MCOR); and additionally, Appellant attached supporting evidence (Chuck Colombo Memorandum and Enclosures) with the Whistleblower disclosure (A-1). 7. This Whistleblower disclosure revealed a fraudulent income skimming scheme to underreport or fail to report taxes collected at the source of income; and, Appellant demonstrated that the employer is completely liable for such tax evasion, and for all penalties, which result from tax evasion thereby (Chuck Colombo Memo and Enclosures).

8. Thereafter, the MCOR made changes to the M1 2009 Tax Return and MCOR made an assessment of $37.00 that Appellant owed to Minnesota Revenue, and Appellant did disagree with said tax assessment, and did file a timely appeal, on the 30th day of March, 2010 (Tax Court IFP Appeal Exhibits, Appeal Form, Statement, and Priority Mail Confirmation). 9. On administrative appeal, the Appellant did demonstrate that Minnesota Revenue Statutes have been repealed, and that Appellant could not find the current Tax Code Statutes (Tax Court Appeal Exhibits (A1-A-2), (Appeal Statement, par. 4); in addition, the notice of changes made and the tax appeal forms provided by the Commissioner did failed to disclose a citation of statute authority under the Minn. Tax Code, for which Minnesota Revenue operates upon, or for which appeal process and procedure is regulated thereby (IFP Appeal Exhibits, Summary of Accounts, Tax Bill, Tax Appeal Form). 10. To bring forth an appeal, the Appellant brought forth the inequity that holds Appellant completely and solely liable for the employers tax fraud scheme, which falsely reports income deducted at the source of income (TP-4); however, since Appellant could not locate the Minnesota Revenue Tax Code (A-2a-3), the Appellant used citation of authority from the United States Code and the IRS Tax Code, and Minnesota Unemployment, and Minnesota Employment and Economic Development statutes (IFP Appeal Exhibits, A2a-A3). 11. In addition, on appeal, the Appellant did demonstrate that the employer shall be liable for the payment of tax required to be deducted and withheld by the Tax Code, and that the U. S. Supreme Court declared it to be unfairly discriminatory to hold an individual employee liable for a tax owed by the employer (Tax Court Exhibit, Minn. Revenue Appeal, par. 8-10).

12. Moreover, Appellant specifically requested MCOR to investigate and pursue penalties and collection against said employer (TP-4); because, the U. S. Supreme Court declared that Appellant is not to be held liable for the tax evasion of the employer; and, Appellant did make the necessary sworn declaration (IFP Appeal Exhibit, Appeal Statement, 8). 13. After the MCOR six month appeal jurisdiction had expired, MCOR again initiated a recollection effort to again collect $37.00 without affording Appellant his Statutory Right to Reconsideration or his right to a Written Determination on his administrative appeal (Minn. Stat. 270C.35(1)(6)(9); therefore, MCOR has knowingly deprived Appellant of property without the equal protection of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which required Appellant to declare such action as official extortion (Tax Court Amended Appeal, 14-15). 14. Since MCOR refused its statutory duty to investigate, reconsider, and file and serve a written determination on the appeal issues of Appellant (Minn. Stat. 289A.50(8), the Commissioner did waive its right to draft, frame, or attack any legal issue that Appellant could pursue to the Minnesota Tax Court (Minn. Stat. 270C.35(9); (Minn. Const. Art. 1, 2, 8). 15. On the 12th day of January, 2011, the Appellant did complete the process for appeal to the Minn. Tax Court (MTC); and thereafter, since the tax assessment was $37.00 at that time, Appellant agreed and accepted the jurisdiction of the SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION of the MTC (Minn. Stat. 289A.50(7); however, since Appellant had not fully developed his case, and had not discovered the fraudulent concealment of $9,120.00 in defrauded Rent Rebates, said uninformed error did cause Appellant to lose his appeal rights by accepting Small Claims Court Jurisdiction; therefore, if this Court cannot grant Appellant the relief sought, Appellant does request for his appeal rights to be restored (Minn. Const. Art. 1; 2, 8).

16. On the 25th day January, 2011, the Appellant received his 2010 year W-2 Tax Statement from employer, Pierson Pizza, dba Dominos (TP-5), and Appellant discovered that said employer has continued to carry-on his practice to refuse to report taxes deducted and withheld at the source of income; and as a result, the MCOR became acquiesced in said tax fraud scheme. At this time, Appellant did make telephone contact with MCOR Collectors who informed Appellant that his 2009 appeal was not considered to be an appeal, and that Appellant has no right to discover whether his Whistleblower disclosure was investigated or not. 17. To prepare an Amended Appeal Statement for a MN Tax Court pre-trial hearing, on the 17th day of March 2011, Appellant did set forth that employer, Pierson Pizza, dba Dominos, has engaged in a criminal enterprise of tax evasion, and Appellant demonstrated that said employer under-reported and failed to report taxes withheld and deducted in the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 (TP-4-5) (Amended Appeal, 4-6). a) Appellant disclosed that in 2008, said employer reported taxes withheld as [ $22.64 ] however, the correct statutory withholding is to be [ $110.00 ] ( Exhibit TP-4). b) Appellant disclosed that in 2009, said employer reported taxes deducted as [ however, the statutory withholding is required to be [ $32.00 ] (Exhibit TP-4). c) For the year 2010, Appellant now discloses that for the year 2010, said employer reported taxes deducted and withheld as [ blank ] none; however, the statutory withholding was required to be [ $70.00 ] (Exhibit TP-5). 18. On the 10th day of April, 2011, Appellant received the Assistant Attorney Generals Answer to the amended appeal statement, as prepared by Asst. Attorney General, Kyle R. Gustafson, ] none;

blank

and the Commissioner did deny each and every allegation that Appellant set forth (Answer To Notice Of Appeal, Kyle R. Gustafson). Thereafter, while a pre-trial hearing was scheduled and pending, Kyle R. Gustafson withdrew his representation from this Tax Appeal, and this Tax Appeal was unknowingly forwarded to Chuck Colombo, of the Appeals Division of Minnesota Revenue, without notice or acknowledgment to the Tax Court or Appellant. 19. After receiving the Answer from Kyle R. Gustafson, Appellant began his own legal research, and Appellant did find and locate the current Minnesota Tax Code and the Minnesota Taxpayer Bill Of Rights; Appellant did discover his statutory right to reconsideration and a written determination (270C.35); Appellant did discover that the Commissioner has a statutory duty to examine and investigate Whistleblower disclosures on tax evasion schemes (289A.50(c)(8); Appellant did discover his statutory right to a Rent Rebate for the year 2009 Tax Return; and Appellant did discover that he has been defrauded, for the past (8) years, by a willful practice to deny, cheat, and steal yearly Rent Rebates from Appellant (290A.19). Therefore, it is now imperative that this criminal enterprise to defraud Appellant is adjudicated and defeated herewith because the Commissioner knowingly refused to investigate, or issue penalties, or reconsider its tax assessment, or to make any written determination when the Commissioner did have jurisdiction over this matter but refused to perform its statutory duty (289A.60(11)(a)(2). 20. On the 11th day of May, 2011, the Appellant disclosed to Chuck Colombo, and this Tax Court, that the Managing Agent of the rental property is required by law to issue a certificate of rent paid (CRP) at the end of each year, so that Appellant can claim his entitlement to a Rent Rebate (MTC Appeal, Response To Issue Resolution). In addition, during March, 2011, said Managing Agent refused to comply with its statutory duty, under Minn. Stat. 290A.19,
7

and said Managing Agent does continue to engage in discrimination against Appellant where such violation warrants a $100 penalty for each failure to comply, and where $800 can be assessed against said Property Management (Minn. Stat. 289A.60(12)(b)(2). At present, Appellant is compelled to locate, discover, and obtain his own CRP Form (TP-6), and then to use his own information to complete the CRP Form (TP-6), and only then will the Property Managing Agent place his initials on the CPR Form (TP-6), in violation of (290A.19); furthermore, Appellant did file his CRP M1PR Tax Return for the very first time since the year 2003 (TP-7). 21. Since the tax records of Appellant prove that Appellant has never claimed any rent rebate for the past (8) years, this instant appeal reveals that Appellant has just now discovered his statutory right to a Rent Rebate, and that the property manager did defraud Appellant out-of past Rent Rebates by its fraudulent scheme to conceal its statutory duty to issue or mail a completed CRP to Appellant (289A.60(12)(b)(2); Minn. Stat. 541.051(1). 22. To defraud Appellant, the motivation of said property management is still a pending issue of continued and on-going retaliation against Appellant for engaging in statutorily protected activity in the year 2004, in the year 2008, and in the year 2010; and, the magnitude of this defraud scheme does encompass other renters on the property, as conspirators, and does encompass the Police Officers of Shakopee, MN, as co-conspirators, and does encompass the Scott County Attorney, as an accessory after-the-fact; all of which has been pursued to the U. S. Dept. of Justice in Case No. 207-39-0-/34709. 23. Since MCOR did receive the Whistleblower disclosure for the 2009 tax fraud scheme involving employer, Pierson Pizza, dba Dominos, and since MCOR refused to investigate,

reconsider, or reach a determination on the tax evasion issue; and thereafter, since MCOR knowingly allowed said employer to continue and carry-on its tax evasion practice against Appellant; and, since MCOR did proceeded to carry-on and advance the employers tax fraud scheme by engaging in collection activity of a debt that is created by the employers tax fraud scheme (TP-2), MCOR did enjoin in an official criminal enterprise with said employer to officially extort undue taxes from Appellant (Amended Appeal, 14-15). ISSUES OF LAW AND FACT 24. When Appellant disclosed to MCOR that his employer had devised a tax evasion scheme to fail to deduct or to withhold taxes, and/or to fail to report taxes collected at the source of income, it was an affirmative statutory duty of MCOR to examine the Whistleblower disclosure and to examine the return and make an investigation of employer records and accounts necessary for a determination on correctness of the return Klein Bancorporation Inc v. C. I. R., (MN App. 1998) 581 N.W.2d 863, 868-869, as brought forth by the following statutory mandate of tax administration:
Minn. Stat. 289A.60(11)(a)(2) Penalties Relating To Information Reports, Withholding. (a) When a person required, under Section 289A.09(2), to give a statement to an employee or payee and a duplicate statement to the commissioner, ***, gives a false or fraudulent statement to an employee or payee ***, that person is liable for a penalty of $50 for an act or failure to act, The total amount imposed on the delinquent person for failures during a calendar year must not exceed $25.000.00 for each instance.

As a result of the penalty for fraudulent or false statements made on the 2008, 2009, and the 2010 W-2 Statement, the three $50 penalties ($150.00) did consume the $37 tax assessment that MCOR has assessed against Appellant, and the MCOR did deprive Appellant of the equal protection of law, under Minn. Stat. 289A.60(11), and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

25. Thereafter, when MCOR changed the M1 2009 Tax Return and claimed that Appellant owed $37.00 in taxes, and when MCOR failed to investigate or examine the Whistleblower disclosure and issue a determination thereupon; and then, when MCOR gave Notice to Appellant regarding his right to appeal, the Notice of Changes made and the Appeal FORMS failed to disclose the current MN Tax Code Statute, or any citation of MCOR authority, as mandated by the following Minnesota Taxpayer Bill Of Rights:
Minn. Stat. 270C.28(1)(1)(2) Disclosure Of Rights To Taxpayers. (1) In general. The commissioner shall prepare statements that set forth in simple and nontechnical terms: (1) the rights and obligations of the department and the taxpayer ***; (2) the procedures by which a taxpayer may appeal an adverse decision of the department, including administrative and judicial appeals; ***

As a result of failure to disclose the repealed and replaced Tax Code, when Appellant did inform MCOR that the Tax Code had been repealed; when the Commissioner willfully denied Appellant an administrative hearing; and when the MCOR willfully denied reconsideration and a written determination to Appellant; the nondisclosure of the MCOR was intended to hide the current Tax Code so that Appellant would not discover his rights under the current MN Tax Code State v. Bies, (MN S. Ct. 1960) 103 N.W.2d 228, 234; therefore, the Commissioners willful disregard of his statutory duty to examine returns and rule upon refund claims does prove that a tax assessment has been made in violation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Klein Bancorporation Inc. v. C. I. R., (MN App. 1998) 581 N.W.2d 863, 868-869. Moreover, when the MCOR Collectors informed Appellant that his appeal document was not considered to be an appeal, MCOR Collectors knowingly and willfully deprived Appellant of the following rights:
Minn. Stat. 270C.35(1)(6) Administrative Review. (1) Taxpayer Right To Reconsideration. A taxpayer may obtain reconsideration by the commissioner of an order assessing tax, ***, or a denial of a claim for refund by filing an administrative appeal under subdivision 4. (6) Determination On Appeal. On the basis of applicable law and available information, the commissioner shall determine the validity, if any, in whole or part of the appeal and notify the taxpayer of the decision. This notice must be in writing and contain the basis for the determination.

10

26. As a result of this violation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the Commissioners failure to raise a fact issue or render a determination on Appellants tax appeal, entitles Appellant to a judgment against the Commissioner; moreover, since the Commissioner has waived its right to frame any issue of law or fact or determination on any appeal issue State v. Crowsbreats, (MN S. Ct. 2001) 629 N.W.2d 433, 437; Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star Tribune Co., (MN S. Ct. 1985) 367 N.W.2d 476, 488; Butt v. Schmidt, (MN S. Ct. 2008) 747 N.W.2d 566, 578, the MCOR can only reply to the appeal issues of Appellant, on appeal. 27. To establish a defraud by non-disclosure, there must be a suppression of facts which one party is under a legal obligation to communicate to the other, and which the other party is entitled to have communicated to him Richfield Bank & Trust Co., v. Sjogren, (MN S. Ct. 1976) 244 N.W.2d 648, 650-652. As a result, the managing agent of the Sandalwood

Property has a statutory duty to provide to Appellant a Certification Of Rent Paid (CRP) at the end of each year of rental occupancy, and the managing agent is also under statutory duty to mail its CRP to the last known address of the renter, and this statutory duty is set forth by the following CRP Rent Rebate statute:
Property Tax Refund. 290A.19 Owner or Managing Agent To Furnish Rent Certificate. The owner or managing agent of any property for which rent is paid for occupancy as a homestead must furnish a certificate of rent paid to a person who is a renter on December 31, in the form prescribed by the commissioner. If the renter moves before December 31, the owner or managing agent may give the certificate to the renter at the time of moving, or mail the certificate to the forwarding address if the address has been provided by the renter. The certificate must be made available to the renter before February 1 of the following year in which the rent was paid. The owner or managing agent must retain a duplicate of each certificate or an equivalent record showing the same information for a period of three years.

In addition, during the year 2003 and 2004, the managing agent of the Sandalwood property has an unlawful practice of substituting the required CRP, by giving an unlawful 28 day yearly rent credit to Appellant so as to subvert its statutory duty to issue a CRP; however,
11

after Appellant was compelled to engage in statutorily protected activity against discrimination by the Sandalwood Property Owner, Appellant was denied the aforesaid 28 day rent credit, and Appellant has been denied his CRP (Case No. 70-CV-08-23140). Therefore, since the Sandalwood Owner and the Managing Agent did maliciously and willfully subvert the law and violate its statutory duty to issue a 2009 CRP to Appellant; and, since a fraudulent concealment of their statutory duty does toll the one year statute of limitations Curtis v. Altria Group Inc., (MN App. 2010) 792 N.W.2d 836, 860-861, Appellant does maintain the seeds of revival on all Rent Rebates since the year 2003 State v. Bies, (MN S. Ct. 1960) 103 N.W.2d 228, 234-235; Mays v. Commissioner of Revenue, (MN Tax Ct. 2001) WL 561335. 28. As a consequence to all matters aforesaid, since the employer violated its statutory duty to deduct and withhold the required taxes at the source of Appellants income; since the managing agent of the rental property violated its statutory duty to issue a CRP; and, since MCOR violated its statutory duty to examine a whistleblower disclosure of tax evasion, violated its statutory duty to examine and investigate tax return information, violated its statutory duty to examine and correct the amount of the refund, violated its statutory duty to assess penalties against the employer for under-reporting or falsely reporting information on W-2 Forms, violated its statutory duty to disclose the current Tax Code to Appellant, and violated its statutory duty to grant Appellant the right of reconsideration and then issue a written determination, the MCOR has defrauded the Appellant Butt v. Schmidt, (MN S. Ct. 2008) 747 N.W.2d 566, 578; Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank, (MN S. Ct. 1996) 553 N.W.2d 393, 404; and additionally, Appellant has also been defrauded by the employer, and defrauded by the property owner and managing agent due to their pattern and practice that
12

does refuse to carry-out their statutory duty to maintain compliance with Minnesota Tax Code Administration Richfield Bank & Trust Co., v. Sjogren, (MN S. Ct. 1976) 244 N.W.2d 648, 650-652. RELIEF SOUGHT 29. Wherefore, since the Commissioner is in violation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Appellant is entitled to a judgment against the Commissioners tax assessment because the Minnesota Tax Code has granted numerous powers to the MCOR and the Commissioner has refused to use them to penalize the employer with a $150.00 fine; or, to hold the employer liable for a tax evasion scheme that has caused injury to Appellant; moreover, since the MCOR waived its right to render a written determination when it had jurisdiction to do so, Appellant is entitled to reconsideration on its 2009 Rent Rebate, and a judgment to grant the Rent Rebate, and to award the 2009 Rent Rebate to Appellant, totaling $1,520.00. In addition, this Court is entitled to an $800 penalty assessment that should be levied against the defraud actions of Sandalwood Management, under Minn. Stat. 290A.19, and 289A.60(12)(b)(2).

By: ____________________________________ Joshua J. Israel / Appellant x. x. xxx xxx, xxxxxxx, xx xxxxx (xxx) xxx-xxxx

13

STATE OF MINNESOTA TAX COURT

____________________________________________________________________________ JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Tax Court Docket No. 8327-S Appellant, Appeal Brief and Statement regarding the Commissioners denial of access to v. all process, and denial to an investigation, a reconsideration and determination, with no COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, disclosure of the current Tax Code Statute, Appellee. in violation of the Tax Payer Bill of Rights. ____________________________________________________________________________

Proof Of Service
Appellant certifies that this Appeal Brief is served upon the Minnesota Tax Court by placing said appeal brief in an envelope addressed to the Tax Court, and by service to the Tax Court through the U. S. Postal Service, on the 28th day of June, 2011; and, that this Appeal Brief is served upon Chuck Colombo, by placing same in an envelope addressed to Chuck Colombo; and due to limited cash funds (IFP), service to Chuck Colombo is by service through the U. S. Postal Service, on the 30th day of June 2011, at the following addresses: Lisa Pister, Court Administrator Minnesota Tax Court, Minnesota Judicial Center # 245 25 Rev. Dr. M. L. King Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55155 Chuck Colombo, Revenue Appeals Division Minnesota Revenue, Appeal and Legal Services Mail Station 2220, 600 North Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55146-2220

By: ___________________________________ Joshua J. Israel / Appellant x. x. xxx xxx, xxxxxx, xx xxxxx (xxx) xxx-xxxxx

14