Abrams v. Commissioner

82 T.C. No. 29, 82 T.C. 403, 1984 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 5, 1984
DocketDocket No. 1280-83
StatusPublished
Cited by262 cases

This text of 82 T.C. No. 29 (Abrams v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. No. 29, 82 T.C. 403, 1984 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100 (tax 1984).

Opinion

OPINION

Dawson, Chief Judge:

This case was assigned pursuant to Delegation Order No. 8 of this Court, 81 T.C. XXV (1983), to Special Trial Judge Francis J. Cantrel for the purpose of considering and ruling on respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings filed herein. After a review of the record, we agree with and adopt his opinion which is set forth below.

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE

Cantrel, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings filed on September 29, 1983, pursuant to Rule 120, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.1

Respondent, in his notice of deficiency issued to petitioner on October 20, 1982, determined deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal income tax and additions to the tax for the taxable calendar years 1980 and 1981 in the following respective amounts:

Additions to tax. I.R.C. 1954
Years Income tax Sec. 6651(a)2 Sec. 6653(a) Sec. 6654
1980 $6,782.84 $1,300.01 $339.14 $306.73
1981 9,026.00 2,256.50 451.30 691.57

The adjustments to income as determined by respondent in his deficiency notice are as follows:

1980 1981
Salary and wages3 $26,762.94 $32,582.30
Exemptions. (3,000.00) (4,000.00)
23,762.94 28,582.30

Petitioner’s legal address on the date the petition was filed was Box 3008, TR 14, Forsyth, Mont.

The petition, which was timely filed on January 18, 1983, was signed only by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court.4 Pursuant to an order of this Court, respondent timely filed his answer on March 11, 1983, on which date the pleadings were closed.5 Respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed more than 30 days after the pleadings were closed. See Rules 34, 36, 37, 38, and 120.

Rule 34(b) provides in pertinent part that the petition in a deficiency action shall contain "Clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or liability” and "Clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error.”

Petitioner at paragraphs 4 through 8 of his petition alleges—

4. The determination of tax set forth in said Notice of Liability is, apparently, based upon a jeopardy assessment issued September 14, 1982.

5. Petitioner alleges the following errors:

A. The jeopardy assessment was not justified.

B. The Administrative Review provided was a mere sham amounting to a pro forma approval.

C. The procedure followed by respondent was justifiable by neither the facts nor applicable law.

6. The Petitioner alleges that he has incurred no tax liability for either of the years in question, to wit: 1980 or 1981.

7. Petitioner’s only income was in the form of wages which are personal property and, as such, are not subject to the imposition and collection of a direct tax which has not been apportioned as clearly required by the Constitution of the United States of America.

8. In summary then, the penalties assessed against this Petitioner are without foundation and are incorrect.

Petitioner concludes his petition with a demand for a jury trial.

It is clear beyond doubt that the petition raises no justiciable facts respecting any of respondent’s determinations. In our view, petitioner is yet another in a seemingly unending parade of tax protesters bent on glutting the docket of this Court and others with frivolous and groundless claims (all of which have been summarily rejected by this Court and others on innumerable occasions), and he has instituted and maintained this proceeding primarily for delay. We answer his frivolous and groundless contentions, as enunciated in his petition, herein-below.

Respondent issued a valid notice of deficiency, a timely petition was filed, and this Court has jurisdiction of this case. Secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214.

The determinations made by respondent in his notice of deficiency are presumed correct; the burden of proof is on petitioner (not respondent) to show those determinations are wrong, and the imposition of the burden of proof is constitutional. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); Rockwell v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1975);6 Rule 142(a).

This Court generally (as is the case here) will not look behind a deficiency notice to examine evidence used or the propriety of the Commissioner’s motives or of the administrative policy or procedures involved in making his determinations. Proesel v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 600 (1979); Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974).

Petitioner is not permitted to raise the issue of the validity of respondent’s jeopardy assessment in this Court. Congress has, by statute, provided an avenue for review of a jeopardy assessment. Section 7429, which pertains to Review of Jeopardy Assessment Procedures, provides that such review shall be undertaken by a U.S. District Court. See Williams v. United States, 704 F.2d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 1983). In our opinion, Congress enacted section 7429 in an attempt to mitigate the harsh effects of jeopardy assessments by permitting a limited and prompt review of the propriety of jeopardy assessments. Review of a jeopardy assessment in the Tax Court was not provided by Congress, and we cannot entertain such review. The record discloses that petitioner chose to ignore the proper forum for review, and he cannot here complain that the jeopardy assessment was improper.

Petitioner has not been wrongfully denied a jury trial. "The Seventh Amendment does not apply to suits against the United States, because there was no common law action against the sovereign. McElrath v. United States, 102 U.S. 426, 440 (1880). Thus, it has repeatedly been held that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in the Tax Court. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 599 n. 9 (1931); McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983), affg. 76 T.C. 1027 (1981); Lonsdale v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Albert Mark Fonda
U.S. Tax Court, 2025
Reynold Harvey
U.S. Tax Court, 2023
Choong H. Koh v. Commissioner
2020 T.C. Memo. 77 (U.S. Tax Court, 2020)
Burt v. Comm'r
2013 T.C. Memo. 140 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
Harper v. Comm'r
2013 T.C. Memo. 79 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
Michael J. Harper v. Commissioner
2013 T.C. Memo. 79 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
Satkiewicz v. Comm'r
2013 T.C. Memo. 73 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
United States v. Pugh
717 F. Supp. 2d 271 (E.D. New York, 2010)
G-5 Inv. P'ship v. Comm'r
128 T.C. No. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)
Bowman v. Comm'r
2007 T.C. Memo. 114 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)
Karkabe v. Comm'r
2007 T.C. Memo. 115 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)
Lundgren v. Comm'r
2006 T.C. Memo. 177 (U.S. Tax Court, 2006)
Silver v. Comm'r
2005 T.C. Memo. 281 (U.S. Tax Court, 2005)
OLSEN v. COMMISSIONER
2001 T.C. Memo. 217 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
FURNISS v. COMMISSIONER
2001 T.C. Memo. 137 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
TONN v. COMMISSIONER
2001 T.C. Memo. 123 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
The Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner
115 T.C. No. 37 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner
115 T.C. No. 37 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Hart v. Commissioner
2000 T.C. Memo. 78 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 T.C. No. 29, 82 T.C. 403, 1984 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-commissioner-tax-1984.