DocketNumber: Docket No. 24427-83.
Filed Date: 12/28/1983
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GILBERT,
Petitioner was a resident of Flint, Michigan, at the time his petition was filed. On his Federal income tax return for 1981, petitioner reported wages in the amount of $22,401.73 on line 7 of Form 1040. On line 23 of the return, however, he claimed a deduction for "nontaxable receipts" in that same amount.Respondent issued a statutory notice of deficiency, dated May 20, 1983, determining that petitioner was liable for the deficiency. In reaching that determination, the only adjustment made by respondent was the disallowance of petitioner's deduction for so-called nontaxable receipts.
Petitioner filed a petition with this Court on August 22, 1983, in which he alleged the following assignments of error:
(1) That respondent erroneously and wrongfully included in gross income the $22,401.73 originally deducted as nontaxable receipts, and
(2) That respondent erroneously and wrongfully implied that petitioner is a "tax protester."
Respondent thereafter filed the motion to dismiss, on October 17, 1983, contending that the petition fails to state a claim upon which1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 6">*8 relief can be granted.
The petition in a deficiency action must contain: "Clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency * * *." Rule 34(b)(4). Any issues that are not raised in the assignments of error are deemed conceded. Rule 34(b)(4).The petition must also contain: "Clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error, except with respect to those assignments of error as to which the burden of proof is on the Commissioner." Rule 34(b)(5). This Court may dismiss any case when the petition fails to include allegations of justiciable error and specific facts in support of such error. Rule 123(b);
Petitioner does not deny that he received wages in the amount of $22,401.73 during the year 1981. Instead, he argues that the $22,401.73 deducted as nontaxable receipts on his income tax return represented gross receipts for "lost property/labor." It is his contention that labor is property and that, since the wages received for his labor reflect only a return1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 6">*9 of lost property, those wages are not includable in gross income, adjusted gross income, or taxable income. Petitioner concludes that, since wages for labor are only a return of lost property, there is no need to analyze further the receipts earned from that labor.
This Court has considered and rejected the arguments advanced by petitioner in numerous prior cases. See
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's determination in this case is incorrect. Rule 142(a);