CASE #15-CV-2039


Assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer

Date Filed: 11/18/2015

Ron DePolo works as a carpet and flooring installer in Texas. For the year 2005, the IRS falsified its records to make it appear that it had created a Substitute For Return (SFR) on his behalf when, in fact, no SFR was created for Ron, nor is one EVER created for ANY American at ANY time.

But, based of its falsified records, the IRS calculated that Ron had an income tax deficiency of $35,384.00, plus additional penalties of $18,226.72 and interest of $12,938.60, for a total deficiency of $66,549.32. To collect this fraudulently-created amount, the IRS garnished Ron’s wages.

In November of 2015, however, Ron fought back by filing this lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin (stop) the IRS from falsifying federal records. This was to be the third of many lawsuits subsequently filed by Plaintiffs from all over America who discovered that their IMF records had been similarly falsified.

True to form, the Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit alleging that the Court lacks jurisdiction to even hear the case, per the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S. Code §7421) which states "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed."

In reality, there are fourteen (14) exceptions to the AIA that allow the Court to invoke its “equity jurisdiction” and rule on the merits of such cases. Erin Morrow Hawley does a masterful job of explaining this in her Article entitled “The Equitable Anti-Injunction Act, Notre Dame Law Review, 2014, Volume 90:1, pg. 81.

Despite this powerful evidence, Judge Collyer dismissed Ron’s case for lack of jurisdiction.

And, when Ron appealed the dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, that Court affirmed Judge Collyer’s ruling.

Following are the Docket Sheets containing links to all the documents filed in this case.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

15-2039 Docket Sheet

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

16-5308 USCA Docket Sheet