DocketNumber: No. 14736-97
Citation Numbers: 78 T.C.M. 726, 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 417, 1999 T.C. Memo. 361
Judges: "Wolfe, Norman H."
Filed Date: 10/29/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
*417 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
*418 MEMORANDUM OPINION
WOLFE, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable years 1991 and 1993 and additions to tax for failure to file timely Federal income tax returns pursuant to
____ __________ _______________
1991 $ 3,074 $ 106.50
1993 2,156 539.00
*420 The evidence in this case consists of a stipulation of facts with the attached exhibits (incorporated herein by reference) and oral testimony and exhibits admitted at trial. When the petition was filed, petitioner lived in San Diego, California.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner failed to file an income tax return for the year 1991. Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1991 Federal income tax of $ 3,074 using information provided by third parties. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner failed to report wages, interest, and dividends of $ 23,714 and taxable unemployment compensation of $ 2,280. Petitioner claims that $ 570 of the unemployment compensation he received in 1991 relates to the 1990 taxable year and should not be included in his 1991 gross income. Petitioner also objects to the assignment of this case to a Special Trial Judge for hearing and decision and asserts that the assignment violates his constitutional rights. Petitioner further asserts that the Tax Court is jurisdictionally barred from deciding constitutional questions.
DISCUSSION
1. CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's constitutional arguments are wholly frivolous.
Petitioner asserts*421 that the Tax Court is unconstitutional because it was established pursuant to the provisions of
Petitioner further argues that he is denied due process of law and equal protection by being required*422 to pay the deficiency as a precondition to litigating in the U.S. District Court. A taxpayer has alternative avenues of judicial review available to contest the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency in tax. The taxpayer may either pay the deficiency and sue for a refund in the District Court or the Claims Court, or the taxpayer may withhold payment and petition the Tax Court. In either case, a decision of the trial court may be reviewed in the Court of Appeals and ultimately in the Supreme Court. These procedures satisfy due process. See
Petitioner has voluntarily chosen to have his dispute resolved in this Court. This Court operates pursuant to statute, and petitioner is subject to the statutory rules, including the Special Trial Judges' authority to hear and decide cases under
2. DETERMINATION OF DEFICIENCY
Petitioner failed to file an income tax return*423 for 1991. In determining petitioner's deficiency, respondent reconstructed petitioner's income using information provided by third parties, e.g., Form W-2, Form 1099-INT, and Form 1099-UC. Petitioner does not dispute the source or amount of income set forth in the notice of deficiency. Petitioner has stipulated to receiving the amounts of income set forth in respondent's notice of deficiency. Petitioner's contention is that $ 570 of the unemployment compensation he received in 1991 relates to the year 1990 and should not be included in his 1991 gross income.
In reconstructing petitioner's 1991 income, respondent used the cash receipts and disbursement method. If no method of accounting has been regularly used by the taxpayer, the computation of taxable income shall be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary, clearly reflects income. See
3.
4.
To reflect concessions,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the tax years in issue, unless otherwise indicated. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Respondent has conceded that petitioner is not liable for any deficiency in income tax or addition to tax for the taxable year 1993. Respondent also conceded that petitioner used the standard deduction in computing his 1990 Federal income tax and that petitioner's refund of State income taxes is not includable in petitioner's 1991 income.↩
Freytag v. Commissioner , 111 S. Ct. 2631 ( 1991 )
Joshua Stonecipher v. William E. Bray , 653 F.2d 398 ( 1981 )
Billie C. Rager and Wanda L. Rager v. Commissioner of ... , 775 F.2d 1081 ( 1985 )
Russell Redhouse, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 728 F.2d 1249 ( 1984 )
Norman E. Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Gary ... , 791 F.2d 68 ( 1986 )
willmut-gas-oil-company-v-eugene-fly-former-collector-of-internal , 322 F.2d 301 ( 1963 )