Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / Loy Robert Bost III v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 2000-4, Docket No. 8259-99., Filed January 6, 2000

Loy Robert Bost III v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 2000-4, Docket No. 8259-99., Filed January 6, 2000

24.06.2008  

Loy Robert Bost III v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 2000-4

Docket No. 8259-99.

Filed January 6, 2000.

Loy Robert Bost III, pro se. Steven M. Webster, for the respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

POWELL, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1996 Federal income tax in the amount of $4,434.

The issue is whether wages and a pension distribution are taxable under section 61. 1 Petitioner resided in Hickory, North Carolina, at the time the petition was filed.

**********

1 Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

**********

Respondent determined that petitioner received wages of $31,808 and a pension distribution of $1,270 from a so-called section 401(k) retirement account during 1996, and petitioner has stipulated these facts. Petitioner raises two arguments. First, he contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve the matter. We have frequently stated that the predicates to our jurisdiction are that a valid notice of deficiency is mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address and a timely petition is filed in this Court. See secs. 6612, 6213, Rule 13; see also Monge v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,827], 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Pyo v. Commissioner [Dec. 41,573], 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). That jurisdiction is in personam. See Freytag v. Commissioner [Dec. 52,547], 110 T.C. 35, 39 (1998). In this case a valid notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner at his last known address, and petitioner timely filed a petition in this Court. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction.

Petitioner's second argument is that wages or compensation for labor and the pension distribution are not taxable income. This argument is frivolous. See secs. 61, 72, 402(a); see also Rowlee v. Commissioner [Dec. 40,228], 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-1122 (1983).

Respondent asks that a penalty be imposed under section 6673. That section provides, inter alia, that if it appears to this Court that "the taxpayer's position * * * is frivolous or groundless", the Court may impose a penalty in an amount not in excess of $25,000. Sec. 6673(a). This Court cautioned petitioner at the calendar call and at the trial that the positions he espoused were frivolous and warned him of the provisions of section 6673. Petitioner did not heed these warnings. We therefore award a penalty to the United States against petitioner in the amount of $1,500.

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Легкая судьба электронных документов в суде

Бухгалтерские документы отражают важную информацию о хозяйственной деятельности организации.

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Как открыть для себя «Личный кабинет налогоплательщика»?

Если у вас нет еще доступа в ваш «Личный кабинет», то советую сделать