Chermack v. Commissioner

1989 T.C. Memo. 57, 56 T.C.M. 1215, 1989 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 7, 1989
DocketDocket No. 19101-83.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1989 T.C. Memo. 57 (Chermack 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
Chermack v. Commissioner, 1989 T.C. Memo. 57, 56 T.C.M. 1215, 1989 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56 (tax 1989).

Opinion

WAYNE R. CHERMACK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Chermack v. Commissioner
Docket No. 19101-83.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1989-57; 1989 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56; 56 T.C.M. (CCH) 1215; T.C.M. (RIA) 89057;
February 7, 1989.
Wayne R. Chermack, pro se.
Jack Forsberg, for the respondent.

WILLIAMS

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WILLIAMS, Judge: The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:

Additions to the Tax
YearDeficiencySection 6653(b) 1
1976$ 10,820.29$  5,410.15
197719,908.859,954.43
197825,289.9912,645.00
197930,440.0615,220.03
*57

Petitioner contested both the deficiencies and additions to tax pursuant to section 6653(b) in his petition to this Court. However, petitioner did not appear at the trial nor was any appearance made on his behalf. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution as to the deficiencies in Federal income tax determined in the notice of deficiency for the years 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979, upon which petitioner bears the burden of proof. We granted respondent's motion on June 20, 1988. Respondent's motion to dismiss was filed prior to our decision in Smith v. Commissioner,91 T.C. 1049 (1988), and did not request a finding of default. In Smith we held that additions to tax for fraud can be sustained by default judgment against a taxpayer who does not appear at trial and has abandoned his case.

The only issue remaining is whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for fraud pursuant to section 6653(b). On August 26, 1988, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121, Tax Court*58 Rules of Practice and Procedure, relying on a stipulation of facts and exhibits filed by the parties on May 27, 1986. On September 7, 1988, this Court ordered petitioner to respond to respondent's motion for summary judgment and to show cause why damages in the amount of $ 5,000 should not be awarded to the United States and against petitioner pursuant to section 6673. Petitioner failed to respond.

There appear to be no material facts in dispute and summary judgment can be rendered. Petitioner resided in Duluth, Minnesota when the petition was filed in this case. During the years in issue petitioner was employed by Braniff Airlines ("Braniff") and received wages from Braniff of $ 36,570.57, $ 52,781.42, $ 61,466.11 and $ 71,312.79, respectively.

In May of 1976 petitioner executed a "vow of poverty" in which petitioner purported to irrevocably give all his property and income to The Order of Almighty God Chapter No. 4001, a typical Basic Bible mail order "church." E.g., Basic Bible Church of America v. Commissioner,86 T.C. 110 (1986); Basic Bible Church v. Commissioner,74 T.C. 846 (1980). Petitioner filed a Form W-4E (Exemption from Withholding),*59 in January 1977 with Braniff claiming to be exempt from Federal income tax due to his vow of poverty. In April 1978 petitioner filed a Form W-4 with Braniff claiming 99 exemptions. In March 1979 petitioner filed a W-4 Form claiming to be exempt from Federal income tax. Only $ 90 of Federal income tax was withheld from petitioner's wages for his 1977 tax year, and no Federal income tax was withheld from petitioner's wages for his 1978 and 1979 taxable years.

Petitioner filed Forms 1040 for tax years 1976 and 1977 which reported petitioner's wages from Braniff and claimed charitable contributions pursuant to his purported vow of poverty equal to the wages reported. Petitioner, therefore, reported no tax liability and claimed refunds of the full amount of income tax and FICA tax withheld from petitioner's wages. On his 1978 and 1979 returns petitioner listed his wages from Braniff as "Tax Exempt Income" based on his purported vow of poverty. The 1978 and 1979 returns reported no tax liability and claimed refunds of the FICA tax withheld from petitioner's wages.

On April 8, 1982, petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for conspiring*60 to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 through a scheme utilizing mail order churches to claim false charitable contributions and to claim false withholding exemptions from Federal income taxes during the years at issue in this case.

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

Related

Wagner v. Commissioner
1996 T.C. Memo. 355 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
Tweeddale v. Commissioner
92 T.C. No. 31 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1989 T.C. Memo. 57, 56 T.C.M. 1215, 1989 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chermack-v-commissioner-tax-1989.