DocketNumber: Docket No. 1280-83
Judges: Dawson,Cantrel
Filed Date: 3/5/1984
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/14/2024
*100 Petitioner instituted this proceeding claiming that his wages are not income subject to tax.
*403 OPINION
This*102 case was assigned pursuant to Delegation Order No. 8 of this Court, 81 T.C. XXV (1983), to Special Trial Judge Francis J. Cantrel for the purpose of considering and ruling on respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings filed herein. After a review of the record, we agree with and adopt his opinion which is set forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings filed on September 29, 1983, pursuant to
*103 Additions to tax, I.R.C. 1954 Years Income tax Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6653(a) Sec. 6654 1980 $ 6,782.84 $ 1,300.01 $ 339.14 $ 306.73 1981 9,026.00 2,256.50 451.30 691.57
The adjustments to income as determined by respondent in his deficiency notice are as follows:
1980 | 1981 | |
Salary and wages $ 26,762.94 | $ 32,582.30 | |
Exemptions | (3,000.00) | (4,000.00) |
23,762.94 | 28,582.30 |
*104 Petitioner's legal address on the date the petition was filed was Box 3008, TR 14, Forsyth, Mont.
The petition, which was timely filed on January 18, 1983, was signed only by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court.
*105
Petitioner at paragraphs 4 through 8 of his petition alleges --
4. The determination of tax set forth in said Notice of Liability is, apparently, based upon a jeopardy assessment issued September 14, 1982.
5. Petitioner alleges the following errors:
B. The Administrative Review provided was a mere sham amounting to a
6. The Petitioner alleges that he has incurred no tax liability for either of the years in question, to wit: 1980 or 1981.
7. Petitioner's only income was in the form of wages which are personal property and, as such, are not subject to the imposition and collection of a direct tax which has not been apportioned as *106 clearly required by the Constitution of the United States of America.
8. In summary then, the penalties assessed against this Petitioner are without foundation and are incorrect.
Petitioner concludes his petition with a demand for a jury trial.
It is clear beyond doubt that the petition raises
Respondent issued a valid notice of deficiency, a timely petition was filed, and this Court has jurisdiction of this case. Secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214.
The determinations made by respondent in his notice of deficiency are presumed correct; the burden of proof is on petitioner (not respondent) to show those determinations are wrong, and the imposition of the burden of proof is constitutional. *107
Petitioner is not permitted to raise the issue of the validity of respondent's jeopardy assessment in this Court. Congress has, by statute, provided an avenue for review of a jeopardy assessment.
Petitioner has not been wrongfully denied a jury trial. "The
Gross income means all income from whatever source derived including (but not limited to) wages. It includes income realized in any form, whether in money, property, or services.
On this record, respondent has demonstrated to our satisfaction that the pleadings do not raise a genuine issue of material fact respecting respondent's determinations for the income tax deficiencies and the additions to the tax but rather involve only issues of law. See
In recent times, this Court has been faced with numerous cases, such as this one, which have been commenced without any legal justification but solely for the purpose of protesting the Federal tax laws. This Court has before it a large number of cases which deserve careful consideration as speedily as possible, and cases of this sort needlessly disrupt our consideration of those genuine controversies. Moreover, by filing cases of this type, the protesters add to the caseload of the Court, which has reached a record size, and such cases increase the expenses of conducting this Court and the operations of the IRS, which expenses must eventually be borne by all of us.
Many citizens may dislike paying their fair share of taxes; everyone feels that he or she needs the money more than the Government. On the other hand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes so eloquently stated: "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society."
The Congress of the United States in its expressed desire to stem "the ever-increasing caseload of the Tax Court," amended
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless, damages in an amount not in excess of $ 5,000 shall be awarded to the United States by the Tax Court in its decision. Damages so awarded shall be assessed at the same time as the deficiency*120 and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Secretary and shall be collected as a part of the tax.
Thus, when this Court, in its discretion, determines that a proceeding has been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that a taxpayer's position in a proceeding before this Court is frivolous
This Court is not the only court that has considered awarding damages or other costs, either on its own motion or *411 on motion of the Commissioner, in a proper case. In a tax protester situation where one of the issues was whether the U.S. Constitution forbids taxation of compensation received for personal services, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in late 1981 --
Appellants' contentions are stale ones, long settled against them. As such they are frivolous. Bending over backwards, in indulgence of appellants' *121 pro se status, we today forbear the sanctions of
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has, in a summary and decisive manner, awarded double costs in several tax protester cases on its own motion. On July 7, 1982, in
*412 Meritless appeals of this nature are becoming increasingly burdensome on the federal court system.
Accord
Here, petitioner has instituted these proceedings and has asserted as his defense to the Commissioner's determinations nothing but frivolous and groundless contentions. Petitioners with genuine controversies were delayed while we considered this case.
When the costs incurred by this Court and respondent are taken into consideration, the maximum damages authorized by the statute do not begin to indemnify the United States for the expenses which petitioner's frivolous and groundless *413 action has occasioned. Considering the waste of limited judicial and administrative resources caused by petitioner's action, even the maximum damages authorized by Congress are wholly inadequate to compensate the United States and its other taxpayers. These costs must eventually be borne by all of the citizens who honestly and fairly participate in our tax collection system.
On this record, we find that petitioner's position in this proceeding is frivolous and groundless and that this proceeding was instituted and maintained primarily for delay. Therefore, in*126 our discretion, we conclude that the maximum damages authorized by law ($ 5,000) are appropriate, and damages in that amount will be awarded to the United States under
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended, unless otherwise specified.↩
3. The grounds stated by respondent in his deficiency notice for these adjustments are: "For taxable years ending December 31, 1980 and December 31, 1981, you received salaries and wages from Bechtel Power Corporation in the amounts of $ 26,762.94 and $ 32,582.30, respectively. Since you have not filed Federal income tax returns for those years, your taxable income for taxable year ended December 31, 1980 is increased $ 26,762.94, and your taxable income for [taxable year] December 31, 1981 is increased $ 32,582.30." These amounts are incorrect. The taxable income for 1980 is $ 23,762.94 and the taxable income for 1981 is $ 28,582.30.↩
4. That is the only document filed by said counsel in this case notwithstanding that he has been served with a copy of each and every document filed by respondent and with a copy of an order and a notice of this Court. The Court's records reflect that petitioner himself filed another petition on Jan. 21, 1983. That petition, which contained nothing but frivolous and groundless claims, was closed out on the Court's records by order dated Mar. 4, 1983, on the ground that it was a duplication of this case.↩
5. In his answer respondent, at par. 11, makes affirmative allegations of fact respecting an award of damages under
6. We observe that venue on appeal of this case lies in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.↩
7. See also
8. While respondent presents argument for an award of damages under
9.
10. The language in the first paragraph quoted from
11. In
12. See also
13. See also
14. The Committee reports to sec. 292, Pub. L. 97-248, state, in pertinent part --
"the committee is concerned with the ever-increasing caseload of the Tax Court and the impact that this legislation may have on that caseload. * * * In addition, the committee decided to increase the damages, i.e., penalty, that may be assessed against a taxpayer when proceedings are instituted for delay, and to expand the circumstances under which the Tax Court may assess those damages. [H. Rept. 97-404, at 11 (1982).]"↩
15.
If a court of appeals shall determine that an appeal is frivolous, it may award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.↩
16. Double costs were assessed against Mr. Knighten.↩
17. Double costs were assessed against the Steinbrechers.↩
18. In none of the four cases decided by the Ninth Circuit were damages sought or awarded in this Court.↩
19.
20. In that case, Mr. Tatum had brought a series of civil rights suits against the University of Nebraska charging that the University had discriminated against him by failing to provide adequate housing.↩
21. Petitioner's counsel filed no response to respondent's motion although he was afforded an opportunity to do so by the Court, as indicated hereinbefore.↩
William H. And Avilda L. Edwards v. Commissioner of ... ( 1982 )
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad ( 1916 )
Norman E. McCoy and Mary Louise McCoy v. Commissioner of ... ( 1983 )
Alton M. Parker, Sr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1984 )
Emma R. Dorl v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1974 )
Michael L. Rockwell, and Regina Rockwell v. Commissioner of ... ( 1975 )
William H. Reading and Beverly S. Reading v. Commissioner ... ( 1980 )
Leslie E. Knighten v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1983 )
Norma Williams v. United States ( 1983 )
United States v. Robert R. Romero ( 1981 )
McElrath v. United States ( 1880 )
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. ( 1955 )
Phillips v. Commissioner ( 1931 )
Richard J. Sydnes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1981 )
Clarence W. Steinbrecher and Jeannette D. Steinbrecher v. ... ( 1983 )
United States v. John E. Buras ( 1980 )
Nelson W. Hayward v. Irl E. Day ( 1980 )
Eugene M. Lonsdale, Sr. And Patsy R. Lonsdale v. ... ( 1981 )