Bonaccorso v. Comm'r
This text of 2005 T.C. Memo. 278 (Bonaccorso v. Comm'r) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies of $ 22,988 and $ 23,825 in petitioner's Federal income taxes for 1999 and 2000, respectively. Respondent also determined additions to tax of $ 1,987 and $ 5,527.25 under
Background
All of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated as our findings by this reference. Petitioner resided in New York at the time that he filed his petition.
During 1999 and 2000, Frontier Telephone of Rochester paid petitioner compensation of $ 90,319 and $ 91,192, respectively. HSBC Bank, USA, paid petitioner $ 34 of interest income in each year. Level County Bank of Boston paid petitioner $ 17 of dividends in 1999, and Equiserve paid petitioner $ 18 of dividends in 2000.
During 1999, Level County Bank*277 of Boston paid petitioner $ 2,970 of gross proceeds from the sale of stocks and bonds. Petitioner has offered no proof of any basis in the stocks and bonds sold.
During 2000, Equiserve paid petitioner $ 1,942 of gross proceeds from the sale of stocks and bonds. Petitioner has offered no proof of any basis in the stocks and bonds sold.
During 2000, Western Regional OTB Corp. paid petitioner $ 3,009 of gross proceeds from gambling. Petitioner has offered no proof of any gambling losses incurred in the same taxable year.
Petitioner filed Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1999 and 2000 showing "0" on every line except the line for withholding credits (line 58), the line showing total payments (line 65), and the lines showing refunds due (lines 66 and 67a). To each Form 1040, he attached a copy of his Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for the year and a letter summarizing his legal arguments. The arguments included that no sections of the Internal Revenue Code established an income tax liability, required him to file a return, or authorized the procedures followed by the Internal Revenue Service. Petitioner did not make any estimated tax payments for 1999 or 2000.
*278 Discussion
In the petition in this case, petitioner did not state any facts or assign any errors in respondent's determination of taxable income and tax. The petition merely repeated petitioner's claim that "I found no code section that made me liable for any income tax."
The arguments that petitioner attached to his Forms 1040 for 1999 and 2000 have been long recognized as stale, groundless, and frivolous.
(a) General Definition. -- Except as otherwise provided in this
subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source
derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
* * * * * * *
(3) Gains derived from dealings*279 in property;
(4) Interest;
(7) Dividends;
Petitioner's arguments to the contrary have been consistently rejected and characterized as frivolous in innumerable cases. No further discussion of them is merited. See
Petitioner stipulated that he had presented no evidence of basis that would reduce the proceeds he received from the sale of stock and that he offered no proof of any gambling losses that would offset his gambling winnings. He has not suggested that he had any deductions beyond the standard deduction allowed by respondent in the statutory notice of deficiency.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2005 T.C. Memo. 278, 90 T.C.M. 554, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonaccorso-v-commr-tax-2005.