1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 466 | Tax Ct. | 1994
1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 466">*466 An order granting respondent's motion for damages under
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WOLFE,
Respondent determined the following deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes, additions to tax, and penalty:
Additions to Tax | Penalty | |||
Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6654(a) | Sec. 6662(a) |
1989 | $ 6,486 | $ 1,622 | -- | $ 1,297 |
1990 | $ 6,789 | 1,697 | $ 444 | -- |
The issues for decision with respect to petitioner's Federal income taxes for 1989 and 1990 are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable generally for Federal income taxes1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 466">*467 on his wages; (2) whether petitioner is liable for Federal income taxes on the portion of wages which he earned but which his employer withheld for Social Security taxes; (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, when his petition was filed.
During the years in issue petitioner was employed by U.S. Air, Inc. Petitioner filed a Form 1040A for the taxable year 1989. On Line 7, "Wages, salaries, tips, etc.", petitioner inserted an asterisk referring to a statement on the same page which read:
Although petitioner did not assert on his petition that the amount of his wages was not taxable, except the amounts withheld for Social Security taxes, he asserted at trial, on brief, and on his Forms 1040 and 1040A filed for the years in issue that wages are not taxable unless apportioned. Petitioner did not report his wages on his Forms 1040 and 1040A.
For 1989 and 1990, U.S. Air, Inc. withheld Social Security taxes in the amount of $ 2,676.39 and $ 2,843.28, respectively. No Federal income taxes were withheld from petitioner's wages for the years in issue.
Respondent determined that the entire amount reported as wages on petitioner's 1989 and 1990 Forms W-2 was required to be included in petitioner's gross income for those years. In addition, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the additions to tax under
Respondent's determinations as to petitioner's tax liability are presumed correct, and petitioner bears the burden of proving otherwise.
Petitioner argues that wages are not income for purposes of the
The Internal Revenue Code expressly provides that gross income includes compensation 1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 466">*470 for services.
1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 466">*471 Petitioner also contends that he is not required to report the amounts withheld for Social Security taxes as gross income for 1989 or 1990. He argues that the amounts withheld for Social Security taxes are not gross income to him because he did not receive and did not have any right to receive those amounts. This argument also has been rejected repeatedly by this Court and other courts.
Amounts contributed for Social Security taxes must be reported as gross income,
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under
1994 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 466">*473 Petitioner filed a Form 1040A for 1989 and a Form 1040 for 1990. Petitioner did not report his wages as income on those forms. Respondent determined that the forms which petitioner filed were not "returns" within the meaning of
It is well-settled that attachment of a Form W-2 does not substitute for the disclosure on the return, itself, of information as to income, deductions, credits, and tax liability.
Petitioner argues that he did not include his wages on Line 7 of those forms because of the jurat. Petitioner testified that he could not sign the Forms 1040A and 1040 because he did not believe they were "true, correct, and complete". Petitioner's argument has no basis in law. In
Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony to show that he made an honest and genuine attempt to satisfy the requirements of a return in completing his Forms 1040A and 1040 for 1989 and 1990. Petitioner states that the income tax laws "cannot compel petitioner to swear, under penalty of perjury, that he believes wages are a proper subject of an unapportioned tax". Petitioner testified that his belief that his wages were not subject to the Federal income tax prohibited him from including those amounts as wages on his Forms 1040A and 1040 and signing those Forms as "true, correct, and complete" returns. A good-faith belief that the filing of an income tax return would violate a taxpayer's constitutional rights does not, in and of itself, constitute reasonable cause for failure to file. 3
Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for the accuracy-related penalty for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations under
Petitioner merely asserted that he is not liable for either the additions to tax under
Petitioner provided no evidence that his underpayment was not due to negligence or that he did not disregard rules or regulations. He provided no evidence that he had authority for his understatement, and his return did not disclose it. Respondent's determination of a
Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for additions to tax under
At trial respondent moved for sanctions under
Petitioner researched his arguments and admitted that he was aware that many courts had consistently held that the positions that he asserted were incorrect. Respondent furnished petitioner with a copy of the opinion in
Petitioner filed his petition in this case on October 22, 1992, over 3 months after the opinion in
Respondent repeatedly warned petitioner that if he pursued his protester arguments respondent would move for a penalty under
Petitioner's pursuit of his groundless claims resulted in a waste of this Court's time and resources. Other taxpayers "with genuine controversies were delayed while we considered this case". See
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, unless otherwise stated. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Petitioner's suit in District Court was brought under sec. 6703(c) for refund of a penalty imposed under sec. 6702 for the filing of a frivolous income tax return. Sec. 6703(b) provides that deficiency procedures shall not apply with respect to the assessment or collection of penalties provided by sec. 6702. Petitioner has presented many of the same arguments as to his 1990 return in the deficiency proceedings in this Court and in the proceedings in District Court with respect to the penalty under sec. 6702.↩
3. In
, 498 U.S. 192">205 (1991), the Supreme Court stated that a good-faith belief that the law is unconstitutional, as opposed to a good-faith misunderstanding of the law, does not negate willfulness in a criminal case. See alsoCheek v. United States , 498 U.S. 192">498 U.S. 192 (involving application of theNiedringhaus v. Commissioner , 99 T.C. 202 (1992)Cheek↩ case to a civil tax case).