Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль

Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / James W. VonDyl v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1998-120, Docket No. 12774-97., Filed March 26, 1998

James W. VonDyl v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1998-120, Docket No. 12774-97., Filed March 26, 1998


James W. VonDyl v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 1998-120

Docket No. 12774-97.

Filed March 26, 1998.

James W. VonDyl, pro se. Milton B. Blouke, for the respondent.


GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined income tax deficiencies for petitioner's 1991 and 1992 taxable years in the amounts of $13,775 and $8,176, respectively, and additions to tax as follows: Section 6651(a), 1 $3,443.75 for 1991 and $2,044.00 for 1992; section 6654(a), $787.23 for 1991 and $356.58 for 1992. Petitioner has conceded that he received all of the wages and other items that respondent determined were income. His position is that he did not earn a profit from any of the sources determined to be income. More particularly, the questions for our consideration are: (1) Whether petitioner's wages or compensation from services, interest, dividends, gambling winnings, and proceeds from the sale of stock are income, and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and 6654(a) for each of the taxable years 1991 and 1992.


1 Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and Rule references are to this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.


Petitioner resided at Las Vegas, Nevada, at the time his petition was filed in this case. At trial, petitioner appeared, but did not wish to testify or offer evidence. He requested that we decide his case based on a document presenting his position with respect to respondent's determination. Petitioner's argument as to why the determined items were not income to him may be summarized as follows: (1) The section 61 definition of income is inconsistent with Supreme Court opinions that contain the statement that income equates with the concept of profit, and petitioner contends that his exchange of services for wages or compensation is not a profit situation. (2) The right to receive earnings is "not a privilege that can be taxed." (3) Only income earned outside of the 50 United States is subject to Federal tax. (4) Section 6211 "presupposes that an original assessment has been made."

Petitioner, by selectively analyzing statutes, regulations, and case precedent out of context, has reached the conclusion that amounts he received from any and all sources do not constitute income. Petitioner, following in the footsteps of numerous others who have unsuccessfully attempted to rationalize a way to avoid paying Federal income tax, must also fail. We find petitioner's arguments to be either wholly without merit and not worthy of further analysis and/or previously addressed by this and other courts. See, for example, opinions addressing the question of whether compensation for labor is not subject to tax, such as Funk v. Commissioner [82-2 USTC ╤ 9555], 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982), affg. [Dec. 38,238(M)] T.C. Memo. 1981-506; Broughton v. United States [80-2 USTC ╤ 9728], 632 F.2d 706, 707 (8th Cir. 1980); Hayward v. Day [80-1 USTC ╤ 9296], 619 F.2d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 1980); Rowlee v. Commissioner [Dec. 40,228], 80 T.C. 1111, 1120 (1983). Further, we are not obligated to exhaustively review and/or rebut petitioner's misguided contentions. Crain v. Commissioner [84-2 USTC ╤ 9721], 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination that certain items set forth in the notice of deficiency are income for petitioner's 1991 and 1992 years. We note that respondent determined the amount of each income adjustment from information provided by reporting third parties, and the amounts were established by means of deemed admissions under Rule 90. One of the items of income may be the gross proceeds of a security sale; however, petitioner did not wish to provide any evidence, including whether he had any basis in the security sold so as to reduce the amount of tax liability.

Respondent also determined additions to tax in each year under sections 6651(a) (failure to file) and 6654(a) (failure to pay estimated tax). It is clear from the information available in this case that petitioner failed to file a return. In addition, petitioner has offered no evidence or sound explanations as to why these additions to tax should not be imposed. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and 6654(a) are sustained for the taxable years 1991 and 1992. Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering [4 USTC ╤ 1292], 292 U.S. 435 (1934); Welch v. Helvering [3 USTC ╤ 1164], 290 U.S. 111 (1933).

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered for respondent.


Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  


Электронный документ: вчера, сегодня, завтра

Несколько последних публикаций экспертов Synerdocs были посвящены электронным документам в судах и развитию системы электронного правосудия. В настоящей статье хотелось бы подвести некоторый итог и поднять вопрос о будущем электронного правосудия в России. А оно, как вы понимаете, напрямую связано с электронными документами

Чек-лист для проверки электронного документа на юридическую значимость

В этом году мы много говорили о представлении электронных документов в суд, не скупились на советы и рекомендации. При этом давно не поднимали тему юридической значимости. Пожалуй, с этого стоило начать цикл статей про электронное правосудие. Предлагаю обсудить, из чего же складывается юридическая значимость любого документа, и на что стоит обратить внимание при проверке документа на соответствие требованиям действующего законодательства в области ЭДО. Информация будет полезна всем: кто уже работает с электронными аналогами и тем, кто только открывает для себя новую область знаний.