The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge
ANTHONY W. McGUGAN filed a petition, inter alia, to quash administrative summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to certain third parties seeking information about him. (Dkt. entry nos. 1 & 3.) The Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and as frivolous. (Dkt. entry no. 5.) The IRS then moved to (1) dismiss the petition as untimely, and (2) summarily enforce the administrative summonses. (Dkt. entry no. 6.)
McGugan filed - and the Court reviewed - 201 unnumbered pages in support of the petition (dkt. entry nos. 1 & 3), which he asserts is brought against those who seek to "illegally enforce the internal revenue laws of the federal United States" and "collect federal income taxes against [him]." (Pet., at 10, 14.)*fn1 He asserts that attempts to investigate whether he owes taxes are unconstitutional. (Id. at 13, 17-23, 26; Mem. in Supp., at 7-8; Aff. in Supp., at 11.)
McGugan asserts he (1) is "a non-citizen national of New Jersey," (2) is "domiciled within the New Jersey Republic," (3) does "not reside permanently anywhere on earth, and intend[s] to reside only in Heaven," and (4) has "studied the Constitution, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Treasury Regulations and has independently determined . . . that he has no legal duty to pay any internal revenue tax." (Pet., at 5, 18; Aff. in Supp., at 1, 7; see Pet., at 19 (stating only federal government employees subject to tax).)*fn2 He asserts further:
Christians such as myself are precluded by God's law (the Bible) from depending on the interpretations of men of the law, including the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code. This edict is especially true concerning the proclamations of the Pharisees (lawyers). The law must stand on its own two feet and not require a Pharisee to interpret, because doing so transforms our society of law into a society of men in violation of the legislative intent of the Constitution.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INCOME TAX
The "collection of income tax has long been deemed constitutional and arguments to the contrary will not succeed." Johnson v. N.J. Div. of Motor Vehs., No. 05-1416, 2005 WL 1176951, at *1 (3d Cir. May 19, 2005) (citing Sixteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution); see Stites v. United States Gov't, 746 F.2d 1085, 1085-86 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating same). Furthermore, "challenges [to] the constitutionality of the tax filing requirement" are "frivolous, and no extended discussion is necessary." Brunner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 04-4230, 2005 WL 1703166, at *1 (3d Cir. July 21, 2005); see Crain v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-18 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating same, and that "[w]e perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit").*fn3
McGugan thus was advised of the Court's intention to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and as frivolous, unless he convinced the Court to do otherwise. (7-27-05 Order to Show Cause.)
The plaintiff asserts that his petition is directed:
toward 1) the failure of [an] IRS revenue agent . . . to provide evidence to this court of in personam jurisdiction as a matter of Law over [him]. It also identifies, 2) refusal on the part of the Defendant, to establish on the record, proof of Plaintiff's federal tax liability as a Christian Minister and Biblical Counselor, and the ...