Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / JANINE H. HANSEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, UNITED STATES TAX COURT - SUMMARY OPINION, T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-85, Docket No. 9861-05S., Filed May 23, 2006

JANINE H. HANSEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, UNITED STATES TAX COURT - SUMMARY OPINION, T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-85, Docket No. 9861-05S., Filed May 23, 2006

24.06.2008  

JANINE H. HANSEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

UNITED STATES TAX COURT - SUMMARY OPINION

T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-85

Docket No. 9861-05S.

Filed May 23, 2006.

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

Janine H. Hansen, pro se.

David W. Sorensen , for respondent.

FOLEY, Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 1 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. The issues for decision are whether petitioner is liable for tax relating to unreported income and for the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax relating to 2000, 2001, and 2002.

***********

1 ═ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

***********

Background

Petitioner is the president of the State of Nevada Eagle Forum, a State chapter of the National Eagle Forum. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, petitioner annually received $6,000 of non-employee compensation from a foundation associated with the National Eagle Forum (the foundation), yet petitioner did not file tax returns relating to those years. In a notice of deficiency dated April 5, 2005, respondent determined that petitioner is liable for tax deficiencies totaling $2,544, section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for failure to file a return, and section 6651(a)(2) additions to tax for failure to timely pay taxes relating to 2000, 2001, and 2002. At trial, on January 30, 2006, respondent moved for the imposition of a section 6673(a)(1) penalty.

On May 31, 2005, petitioner, while residing in Sparks, Nevada, filed her petition.

Discussion

Petitioner concedes that she received income and failed to report the amounts determined by respondent. Petitioner contends, however, that she is not liable for tax on these payments because of her religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has held that "Because the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax." United States v. Lee , 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982); see also Adams v. Commissioner , 110 T.C. 137 (1998), affd. 170 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, petitioner is liable for the tax relating to the payments from the foundation. See sec. 61(a).

Respondent bears, and has met, the burden of production with respect to the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax. See sec. 7491(c); Rule 142(a). Petitioner does not meet the requirements of any exception to section 6651(a)(1) or (2). Accordingly, respondent's determinations are sustained. See Higbee v. Commissioner , 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001).

Respondent contends that petitioner's position is frivolous and that, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), the Court should impose a penalty on petitioner. We, however, conclude that it is not appropriate to impose such a penalty in this case.

Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

ТОП-5 трудностей представления электронных документов в суд

Электронные документы «пробиваются» в российские суды уже на протяжении семи лет. В 2010 году была внесена первая поправка в статью 41 Арбитражного процессуального кодекса РФ, позволившая участникам судебного процесса представлять в Арбитражный суд документы в электронном виде. С этого момента вносилось множество изменений и дополнений в различные правовые акты, были изданы новые нормативные документы (подробнее об этом читайте в материалах авторов Synerdocs в конце этой статьи)

Хитров Дмитрий
Хитров Дмитрий

Компания «Электронный арбитраж»

Почему в суд выгодно представлять именно электронные документы?

Право и возможность подачи электронных документов в суд предоставлено в России давно. Однако по старинке стороны ходят на заседания с большими папками бумажных документов вместо планшетов или ноутбуков. Почему?

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Ошибки риэлтора могут помешать получению имущественного вычета

При совершении сделок при покупке или продаже жилья советую быть внимательным при подписании договора купли-продажи. В противном случае покупатель не сможет вернуть НДФЛ в полном размере.

25