17570property tax case
- Mar 26, 2010My general cause is that our rights are not taxable, and no law does so.
My present specific legal issue springs from state of Tennessee.
The material facts of my case are: The Municipal government filed a judicial suit to collect alleged delinquent land property taxes.
My property rights are involved in said suit.
The government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that, pursuant to Tenn. taxing code T.C.A. 67-1-901, no defense can be made in the suit except to plead the tax is paid.
I must file a response to the motion and show my filed defense can be made and heard in the suit.
My initial pleading is not one of a taxpayer liable for any tax amount, but one whose rights are involved. My pleading is that the complaint attempts to unconstitutionally tax my rights to property under my right to life, rather than the lawful tax upon the use of property to derive income or gain from the general public.
Research already done in my case: I have cases in sufficient support of my initial pleading the government is attempting to prevent from being heard..
In my search of cases regarding the government's motion and property taxes, I have found most all of them involve only uncontested taxpayers who are liable for some portion of the tax and come under taxing statutes which limit their due process; and, Who belatedly complain only about the amount of the underlying assessments instead of paying the tax and suing for refund.
Moreover, taxpayer due process limits include exhausting their administrative remedies. However, for my constitutional defenses, the Tennessee Supreme Court, in case: Colonial Pipeline Co. v. John G. Morgan, states that no such remedies are necessary. The government’s motion in this case does not contain grounds for administrative remedies due to this case.
I find that T.C.A. 67-5-509 establishes that the assessments are not considered valid if a denial of minimum constitutional guarantees is plead.
I have found that T.C.A. 67-1-901 for paying the tax under protest and suing for refund is for general taxes and strictly confined to an imminent and immediate seizure of property by a collections officer by distress warrant; and, That the required government land property tax suit is not such an immediate seizure. The intent of the statute is that when the officer is there to seize property, the only remedy to avoid such immediate loss of property is to pay the tax and sue for refund rather than to resist and hold up taxes by filing suits. The tax must be paid to allow for suits against taxes. Such plaintiff suits against taxes is not the government suit required for land property taxes and such government suit is not an immediate seizure or distress warrant. Seizure by sale of the land comes later by court order after the government prevails in the suit and the tax can be paid under protest and suit for refund filed up to one year beyond the sale of the property.
I have found some cases that allow for a taxpayer defense to be filed and heard; and, Newer taxpayers cases that state that can no longer be done by reinterpretation of the statutes.
I have found only one old case that ruled a plea in bar on constitutional grounds can be made; I.e., Not involving an uncontested taxpayer.
What I am thinking about doing and why: In order to prevent losing the case, our home, and helping with all of our rights, I must file a response to the government's motion for judgment on the pleadings; and therein, I must show a (or my) defense can be filed and heard in the case.
I am thinking to show that all taxing statutes and the limited due process are confined to uncontested taxpayers only; and, Only they are under taxing sovereignty. For the government's unconstitutionally applied tax to my rights in this government suit, I come under the constitutional due process of law required to take those rights or else my pleading of lack of jurisdiction must be heard.
I am thinking to show the statute for paying the tax prior to suing for refund is confined to immediate collection officer distress warrant proceedings to seize property, which is not the government suit.
At present all I can do is respond with the cases and grounds I have. I am thinking it is not good enough due to our present court bias.
I need help to make a better showing that for an individual who contests any taxpayer status and taxing statutes, but whose rights are involved, can defend to a government property land tax suit on such basis.
Moderator/Bear: Excellent job here complying with my rules.
- Next post in topic >>