DocketNumber: Docket No. 1724-80.
Filed Date: 9/30/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
PARKER, *171 FINDINGS OF FACT Most of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed in this case, petitioners' legal residence was 529 Mar Vista, Pasadena, California. During the taxable year 1977, petitioners received income of $ 8,769 from which no Federal income taxes were withheld or for which no self-employment tax under section 1401 was paid. The proper amount of tax under section 1401 is $ 693 (7.9% X $ 8,769). Petitioners have made the following payments on their Federal taxes for 1977: Item Amount Withholding $ 19.90 Payment 5-02-77 201.00 Payment 5-02-77 201.00 Payment 6-11-77 201.00 Payment 6-11-77 201.00 Payment 2-18-80 193.00 Total: $ 1,016.90
Petitioners' total taxes for 1977, as determined by respondent, were $ 1,433, leaving an unpaid amount of $ 416.10.
Petitioners do not dispute respondent's determination of the deficiency other than raising various constitutional and religious arguments under Article VI and the
OPINION
As petitioners admittedly are aware, this and other courts time and again have rejected arguments identical to those proffered by petitioners. Recently, in
[T]here has been a long and underviating parade of cases in this and other courts disallowing deductions taken by taxpayers for the part of their taxes which they estimated to be attributable to military expenditures and to which they objected because of their religious, moral, and ethical objections to war and because of their claimed "rights" under various constitutional provisions, the Nuremberg Principles, international law, and numerous international agreements and treaties.
See also
While the Court does not question petitioners' sincerity and good faith, their arguments, no matter how*174 well intentioned, are without merit and thoroughly frivolous.The fact that petitioners' arguments have been rejected untold times in the past and the fact that they are aware of such rejection are adequate to sustain respondent's imposition of the negligence addition under section 6653(a). We have also seriously considered the imposition of damages under section 6673 on the Court's own motion but have declined to do so this time since there is no clear showing that petitioners filed their petition merely for delay. *175 deficiency and the negligence addition stated in the statutory notice, but the payments already made by petitioners should be taken into consideration in any collection action.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect for the taxable year involved in this case, unless otherwise indicated.↩
2. But see and compare
Neila A. Autenrieth v. Joseph M. Cullen, District Director ... ( 1969 )
Howard L. Lull and Barbara B. Lull v. Commissioner of ... ( 1979 )
Richard J. Sydnes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1981 )
Donald Kalish v. United States ( 1969 )
Fyke Farmer v. J. M. Rountree, Director of Internal Revenue,... ( 1958 )