DocketNumber: Docket Nos. 15151-79, 17964-80.
Citation Numbers: 42 T.C.M. 987, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 255, 1981 T.C. Memo. 486
Filed Date: 9/3/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
*255 For each of the years in issue, petitioner claimed a so-called "war involvement" deduction.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
STERRETT,
Docket | Addition to tax under | ||
No. | Year | Deficiency | sec. 6653(a) |
15151-79 | 1975 | $ 127.00 | $ 6.35 |
1976 | 1,539.94 | 77.00 | |
1977 | 2,011.00 | 100.55 | |
17964-80 | 1978 | 3,106.00 | 155.30 |
These cases have been consolidated for purposes of briefing and opinion. After concessions, the issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner is entitled to a "war involvement" deduction in each of the taxable years at issue and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under
The facts in this case have*256 been fully stipulated pursuant to
Petitioner Dennis P. McGuire resided in Minneapolis, Minnesota at the time of the filing of the petitions herein. He timely filed Federal income tax returns for his taxable years ended December 31, 1975, December 31, 1976, December 31, 1977 and December 31, 1978.
On each of the tax returns under examination, petitioner claimed a "war involvement" deduction to express his conscientious objection to the United States Government's military activities and to his indirect participation in such activities through the payment of taxes. The amounts of the claimed war involvement deductions for the taxable years specified were as follows:
War involvement | |
Year | deduction |
1975 | $ 2,108.08 |
1976 | 6,331.19 |
1977 | 10,559.00 |
1978 | 14,079.86 |
Respondent, in his notices of deficiency dated August 2, 1979 and June 19, 1980, disallowed the claimed war involvement deductions and determined that petitioner was liable for additions to tax under
We must first decide whether, for the years in issue, petitioner is entitled to the claimed war involvement deductions.
We begin with the oft-recited legal maxim that deductions are a matter of legislative grace and are not allowable unless specifically provided for by Congress.
This and other courts time and again have rejected arguments identical to those proffered by petitioner. Recently, in
[T]here has been a long and undeviating 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*258 Nuremberg Principles, international law, and numerous international agreements and treaties.
Faced with this overwhelming*259 adverse body of law, petitioner cannot possibly expect this Court to uphold his view.
Petitioner relies strongly on the recent Supreme Court decision in
*260 We also must decide whether respondent properly determined that petitioner was liable for the so-called "negligence penalty" under
1. See
Howard L. Lull and Barbara B. Lull v. Commissioner of ... , 602 F.2d 1166 ( 1979 )
Fyke Farmer v. J. M. Rountree, Director of Internal Revenue,... , 252 F.2d 490 ( 1958 )
New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 788 ( 1934 )
Neila A. Autenrieth v. Joseph M. Cullen, District Director ... , 418 F.2d 586 ( 1969 )
Donald Kalish v. United States , 411 F.2d 606 ( 1969 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )