Constantine v. Commissioner

1981 T.C. Memo. 727, 43 T.C.M. 158, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 22
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedDecember 23, 1981
DocketDocket No. 13105-79.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1981 T.C. Memo. 727 (Constantine 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
Constantine v. Commissioner, 1981 T.C. Memo. 727, 43 T.C.M. 158, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 22 (tax 1981).

Opinion

GEORGE CONSTANTINE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Constantine v. Commissioner
Docket No. 13105-79.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1981-727; 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 22; 43 T.C.M. (CCH) 158; T.C.M. (RIA) 81727;
December 23, 1981.
George Constantine, pro se. Evelyn E. Small, for the respondent.

TIETJENS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TIETJENS, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1974 and 1975 in the respective amounts of $ 3,025 and $ 1,263.76. The sole issue for decision is*23 whether petitioner is entitled to exclude from gross income the payments he received in 1974 and 1975 as pension payments from the Bank of Greece Employee Pension Fund.

This case was fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference.

At the time of filing his petition, petitioner resided in Athens, Greece. Petitioner timely filed joint Federal income tax returns for 1974 and 1975 with the Philadelphia Service Center.

Since April, 1959, petitioner has been a United States citizen. He is also a citizen of Greece and, since May 1959, a resident of Greece.

Until his retirement on December 31, 1959, petitioner was employed by the Bank of Greece (Bank). Petitioner received pension payments attributable to services rendered by him as an employee of the Bank in the amounts of Drs. 210,060 in 1974 and Drs. 264,720 in 1975. 1

Petitioner excluded these amounts, translated into dollars, from his 1974 and 1975 returns as exemptions of income earned abroad.

Although*24 petitioner did not submit a brief, he argued in his petition herein that these amounts should be excludable from his gross income in 1974 and 1975 because (1) Rev. Rul. 60-75, 1960-1 C.B. 281 and Stanford v. Commissioner, 297 F.2d 298 (9th Cir. 1961), affg. 34 T.C. 1150 (1960) are inapplicable to him since he received his pension outside the United States as a foreign resident; (2) Section XI, Part I, of the 1950 tax treaty between the United States and Greece prevents taxation of these amounts; (3) the pensions were received in local currency and, under the Greek Penal Code, may not be converted into U.S. currency; and (4) his entire pension is a return of capital and does not include any interest payments.

Respondent, but contract, contends that petitioner has failed to establish his entitlement to an exclusion for these amounts. He asserts that section 911(c)(5)(a) 2 prohibits the exclusion of pensions, that the authorities upon which petitioner relies are inapplicable to petitioner, and that petitioner has provided no evidence to prove that any part of the pension payments is a return of capital.

*25 We agree with the respondent.

Section 911(a)(1) allows a U.S. citizen who is a bone fide resident of a Foreign country for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year to exclude from his gross income amounts received from foreign sources (except amounts paid by the U.S. or an agency thereof) which constitute earned income attributable to services performed during that period. Section 911(c)(5) provides that no amount received as a pension or annuity may be excluded under section 911(a).

Accordingly, these amounts which petitioner received in 1974 and 1975 as pensions are not excludable under section 911.

Petitioner attempts to distinguish himself, on the basis of his foreign residence, from the taxpayer in Rev. Rul. 60-75, 1960-1 C.B. 281, which states that income accrued by reason of employment prior to a taxpayer receiving U.S. citizenship and paid in a lump sum after he has become a U.S. citizen and resident is not excludable under section 911. On the same basis, petitioner tries to distinguish himself from the taxpayer in Stanford v. Commissioner, supra, wherein similar pensions were not excludable under section 911*26 where the taxpayer had become a U.S. citizen and resident.

Section 911(c)(5), however, was added by section 11(a) of the Revenue Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-834, 76 Stat. 1004, 3 and was therefore, not in effect for either the year of the revenue ruling or the Stanford case. Moreover, we do not find that a foreign residency would be a significant distinction in any event. As a citizen, regardless of residency, an individual is subject to the taxing power of the United States (See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924); Stanford v. Commissioner, supra at 308-309

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

Related

Cook v. Tait
265 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Cooper v. Commissioner
15 T.C. 757 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Stanford v. Commissioner
34 T.C. 1150 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1981 T.C. Memo. 727, 43 T.C.M. 158, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constantine-v-commissioner-tax-1981.