DocketNumber: Docket No. 686-81.
Filed Date: 7/14/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAWSON,
CANTREL, Additions to Tax, 1954 Code Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6653(a) 1973 $ 1,566.54 $ 97.51 $ 78.33 1976 1,259.74 197.14 62.99 1977 1,585.00 396.25 79.25 1978 2,079.00 519.75 103.95
The adjustments to income as determined by respondent are for wages received by petitioner in 1973, 1976, 1977, and 1978 in the respective amounts of $ 10,179.12, $ 9,663.37, $ 11,608.00, and $ 13,575.12, none of which1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 379">*382 was reported on Forms 1040 which petitioner filed with the Internal Revenue Service for those years.
Petitioner resided at 2434 Fleet Street, Baltimore, Maryland, on the date he filed his petition herein. As best we can determine from this record, it appears that he filed a Form 1040 for each of the years at issue with the Internal Revenue Service.
Rule 34(b) provides in pertinent part that the petition in a deficiency action shall 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 or liability"
Section 61(a) defines gross income to mean "all income from whatever source derived, including * * * compensation for services, * * *." Furthermore, federal reserve notes constitute legal tender--money--which must be reported on a taxpayer's return in accordance with his method of accounting.
Since petitioner received gross income in the years before the Court far in excess of $ 750, he was required to file Federal income tax returns for those years. Section 6012. The Forms 1040 submitted by petitioner to the Internal Revenue Service, which contained no information relating to petitioner's income from which the tax can be computed, were not valid returns1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 379">*385 within the intendment of section 6012.
Moreover, petitioner was not being investigated criminally for the years in dispute, and there is absolutely no indication in this record that any such investigation is likely. Under the circumstances herein extant, petitioner's
Petitioner, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 379">*387 notwithstanding his exhortations to the contrary, is not entitled to a jury trial in this Court. Section 7453. See
Indeed, all of the petitioner's constitutional contentions, those discussed above and others, have been fully discussed (adversely to petitioner's contentions) in numerous prior opinions of this and other courts.
In recent times, this Court has been faced with1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 379">*388 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.
The record here is crystal clear. Petitioner has not assigned any justiciable error with respect to the substantive adjustments to his income which were made by respondent in his notice of deficiency. Nor has petitioner alleged any justiciable facts to show that respondent erred in determining those adjustments.
The document filed as a petition is not in conformance with this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure and does not state a claim upon which we can grant any relief.
1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 379">*390 On this record, we are compelled to sustain respondent's determination, and his motion will be granted. An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
1. Since this is a pretrial motion and there is no genuine issue of material fact, the Court has concluded that the post-trial procedures of
2. All rule references herein are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
3. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, unless otherwise indicated.↩
4. Petitioner was advised by the Court at the hearing that his petition did not state a claim upon which the Court could grant relief. When offered the opportunity to file a proper amended petition, he declined stating he wanted to stand on the present record.↩
5. We additionally point out that the constitutionality of the Federal income tax laws passed since the enactment of the
6. See also
7. See also
8. See
9. The Court's language in
10. Indeed, if all the allegations of fact contained in the petition were taken as true, they would fail to state a claim upon which this Court could grant any relief.↩
11. Although we considered imposing damages against petitioner pursuant to