Lonsdale v. Commissioner

EUGENE M. LONSDALE, SR. and PATSY R. LONSDALE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Lonsdale v. Commissioner

Docket No. 9240-79

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo 1981-122; 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621; 41 T.C.M. (CCH) 1106; T.C.M. (RIA) 81122;

March 17, 1981.

---

Eugene M. Lonsdale, Sr., pro se.

Douglas R. Fortney, for the respondent.

---

HALL

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

Hall, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' 1976 and 1977 income tax of $ 1,845.95 and $ 2,495, respectively. The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioners are entitled to itemized deductions and employee business expenses in excess of the amounts conceded by respondent; and (2) whether petitioners' various constitutional assertions are meritorious.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

Eugene M. Lonsdale, Sr. (hereinafter "petitioner") and Patsy R. Lonsdale,

Petitioner incurred itemized expenses and business expenses in 1976 and 1977 as follows (and respondent so concedes):

	1976	1977
Lodging and meals $ 1,203.01	$ 1,105.86
Safety shoes ni	80.00	80.00
Automobile 2	43.65	46.92
Telephone 66.00	66.00
Union dues	234.00	252.00
Charitable contributions	0	33.71
Interest	2,302.87	1,884.59
Taxes	240.67	69.38
Drugs	18.90	187.50
Medical and dental expenses	374.74	1,039.33

In 1976 and 1977 petitioner paid $ 3,643.22 and $ 3,930, respectively, for printing costs. These costs were spent for materials which petitioner distributed on behalf of A.I.P. and for materials which he distributed with the A.I.P. materials. Petitioner deducted approximately 40 percent of these printing costs as charitable contributions. In 1976 and 1977 petitioner also deducted as business expenses costs allegedly incurred in connection with his traveling on behalf of A.I.P.

On their 1976 tax return, petitioners claimed business expense deductions of $ 3,238 and itemized deductions of $ 6,458.77. In his notice of deficiency respondent disallowed all these deductions and instead allowed petitioners a standard deduction.

On their 1977 tax return, petitioners claimed business expense deductions of $ 3,952 and itemized deductions of $ 4,908.88. In his notice of deficiency respondent again disallowed all such deductions.

In the stipulation of facts, at trial and on brief respondent conceded that petitioners were entitled to the deductions set forth above.

OPINION

The issues remaining for decision are: (1) whether petitioner is entitled to business expense deductions and itemized deductions in excess of the amounts conceded by respondent; and (2) whether petitioner's various constitutional assertions are meritorious.

The first issue is whether the costs petitioner incurred in printing materials to be distributed with the A.I.P. materials or on behalf of the A.I.P. are deductible charitable contributions. Section 170(a) Cavell v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1980-516 (1980).

Petitioner asserts, however, that he is entitled to deduct the printing costs because the materials were religious and not political in nature. Petitioner's own testimony refutes this contention. Petitioner testified that the "religious" materials he had printed and distributed were exactly the same as some of the A.I.P. materials that he distributed except that the "religious" materials did not bear A.I.P.'s name or logo. However, petitioner is entitled to a $ 50 credit for political contributions to the A.I.P. for each of 1976 and 1977. Section 41.

The next issue is whether petitioner is entitled to any business expense deductions (including costs incurred in connection with traveling for A.I.P.) or other itemized deductions in excess of the amounts conceded by respondent. These issues are factual, and the burden of proof is on petitioner. Welch v. Helvering,290 U.S. 111">290 U.S. 111 (1933); Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner did not present any evidence which would support any deductions in excess of the amounts conceded by respondent.

The final issue is whether petitioner's various constitutional contentions have any merit. The multitude of constitutional and statutory arguments and affirmative defenses advanced by petitioners are frivolous and without merit. All such contentions have been fully considered by this and other courts, and decided adversely to the taxpayers. ^{Decision will be entered under Rule 155.}

---

Footnotes

• 1. Patsy R. Lonsdale is a petitioner solely by virtue of having filed a joint return with her husband.↩

• 2. These expenses were incurred by petitioner in connection with his employment as a brakeman and are employee business expenses. ↩

• 3. Petitioner's employment as a brakemen required him to be on call which, in turn, required him to have a telephone. Petitioner's family also used the telephone. The $ 66 represents a reasonable value of petitioner's business use of the telephone.↩

• 4. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as in effect during the years in issue.↩

• 5. See the cases cited in Bowser v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1980-483 (1980); Hergott v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1980-283 (1980); Brobeck v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1980-239↩ (1980).