S.Ct. - QUESTIONS PRESENTED-Case # 12-6169
1. Is Respondent’s “income” tax scheme a “Direct,” or “Indirect,” tax, or is there some otherlawful taxation form as yet undeclared by the courts, that counters standing case law? (P. 8)2. Does the Respondent have the lawful and constitutional authority to presume to define“income” as to include “all that comes in,” and to include wages, salary or compensation forservices, contrary to this honorable court’s previous rulings? (P. 10)3. Can the Respondent violate the Paperwork Reduction Act in claiming that Petitioner, or anyAmerican, is lawfully “required” to file a 1040 form that is labeled a “bootleg” form by Congressif it fails the PRA? (P. 16).4. Can Respondent be acting under the name “Internal Revenue Service,” and be lawfullysending said deficiencies and other documents, using U.S. mail, to Petitioner or any othercitizen, when the entity known as the “Internal Revenue Service” was lawfully “cancelled” bythe Treasury Department in 2005? (P. 17).5. Can Respondent/IRS be acting against Petitioner, or any state citizen, when it not a U.S.government agency which Respondent testifies to? (P. 18).