MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DRENNEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to the tax in respect of petitioner's individual income tax liability as follows:
| | Additions to Tax |
| TYE | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a) 1 | Sec. 6653(a) | Sec. 6654 |
| 1971 | $7,308.21 | $1,827.05 | $365.41 | $233.86 |
| 1972 | 3,162.04 | 790.51 | 158.10 | 101.18 |
The issues presented for decision are:
(1) Whether petitioner filed Federal income tax returns for 1971 and 1972; if not, whether for purposes of the addition to tax asserted pursuant to section 6651(a), petitioner's failure to file these returns was due to reasonable cause by virtue of petitioner's claims under various provisions of the Constitution of the United States;
(2) Whether petitioner has proved error in respondent's reconstruction of petitioner's taxable income and determination of income tax liability therefor in respect of each of the taxable years 1971 and 1972;
(3) Whether Federal Reserve Notes constitute legal tender receipt of which represents income upon which petitioner is subject to tax; and
(4) Whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6653(a) (negligence penalty) and section 6654 (failure to pay estimated tax) determined by respondent in respect of both taxable years in issue.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the time he filed his petition herein, petitioner Vernon A. Ellison maintained his legal residence in the State of Wyoming.
On or about April 14, 1972, petitioner filed with the Internal Revenue Service a Form 1040 ("U.S. Individual Income Tax Return") for the year 1971. This Form 1040 contained no information other than petitioner's name, address, social security number, occupation (which he indicated as "gambler"), and claimed exemptions for himself, his spouse, 2 and three named children as dependents. No figures were reported for income or deductions. No tax was shown due nor did any payment accompany the For 1040. The words "Under penalties of perjury" were deleted from the line above petitioner's signature. Attached to the Form 1040 was a handwritten statement captioned "OBJECTIONS TO FORM OF RETURN" in respect of which petitioner specified:
1. Invasion of privacy in violation of 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
2. Possible self-incrimination in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Also, I had no income in valid constitutionally legal dollars $ $ $ redeemable in gold or silver.
On or about March 17, 1973, petitioner filed with the Internal Revenue Service a Form 1040 ("U.S. Individual Income Tax Return") for the year 1972 which stated petitioner's name, address, social security number, and occupation ("consultant") and reported adjusted gross income as "Less than $7.00." No tax was shown due nor did any payment accompany the Form 1040. The phrase "Under penalties of perjury" was deleted from the line above petitioner's signature. Included was a statement of petitioner's objections thereto similar to that appended to petitioner's 1971 Form 1040.
On or about October 14, 1973, petitioner filed with the Internal Revenue Service a Form 1040X ("Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return") for the year 1971 which reported the correct amount of petitioner's adjusted gross income as "Less than 400 dollars." As on the original 1040 for 1971, petitioner crossed out the words "Under penalties of perjury" and also invoked his constitutional rights under various amendments.
When requested by the revenue agent investigating petitioner's income tax liability for the years in issue, petitioner refused to furnish the Internal Revenue Service with any records or other information relating to his income or allowable deductions for the years 1971 and 1972.
By notice of deficiency issued to petitioner on November 26, 1974, respondent determined that no return had been filed for 1971, in respect of which year respondent further determined a deficiency of $7,308.21 in petitioner's tax liability and additions to tax totaling $2,426.32. Respondent also determined therein that no return was filed for 1972 and further determined a deficiency of $3,162.04 and additions to tax amounting to $1,049.79 in respect of petitioner's income tax liability for 1972.Respondent based these determinations on petitioner's taxable income for each year computed by reference to petitioner's deposits to his bank account at the First National Bank of Riverton, Riverton, Wyo. Respondent's computation as to petitioner's taxable income for 1971 was as follows:
| Total deposits during 1971 | $32,522.39 |
| Less: Business expenses 3 | (9,736.53) |
| Standard decuction | ( 750.00) |
| Personal exemption | ( 675.00) |
| Taxable income | $21,360.86 |
Similarly, respondent computed petitioner's taxable income for 1972 as follows:
| Total deposits during 1972 | $18,575.99 |
| Plus: cash withheld from deposits | 5,619.00 |
| Less: deposits from known loan |
| proceeds | ( 1,000.00) |
| Business Income | $23,194.99 |
| Less: business expenses 4 | (10,516.75) |
| standard deduction | ( 1,000.00) |
| personal exemption | ( 750.00) |
| Taxable income | $10,928.24 |
OPINION
The instant case entails primarily petitioner's objections, on various constitutional grounds, to providing the information as required on a proper Federal income tax return and petitioner's corelative contention that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute legal tender and therefore are not constitutionally subject to taxation. Petitioner declined to present any evidence at trial in respect of his income tax liability for the years in issue and relied instead on the legal arguments made on brief. Arguments similar to those advanced by petitioner were considered and rejected in Edward A. Cupp,65 T.C. 68 (1975), on the authority of which case we dispose of petitioner's contentions herein and accordingly hold for respondent.
Petitioner recognizes the authority of the Government to assess and collect taxes but maintains that the exercise of this authority entails violation of his constitutional rights. We emphasize that neither the requirement that petitioner provide information sufficient for the execution of a valid return nor respondent's reconstruction necessitated by petitioner's failure to do so constitutes a violation of petitioner's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.Edward A. Cupp,supra,and cases cited therein. Indeed, had petitioner complied with the basic informational requisites of a valid return, any further inquiry by respondent into petitioner's personal and financial affairs might have been avoided entirely.
Specifically, we hold that the Forms 1040 filed by petitioner for 1971 and 1972 do not constitute returns as required by the statute and case law. For one, a return, to be valid, must be signed by the taxpayer under penalties of perjury. Sec. 6065; 5Edward A. Cupp,supra, at 78-79; John H. Houston,38 T.C. 486 (1962), and cases cited therein at 492; see Peter Vaira,52 T.C. 986 (1969), revd on other grounds 444 F. 2d 770 (3rd Cir. 1971), and the discussion therein at 1005. Petitioner, by excising the phrase "Under penalties of perjury" from the line above his signature on each of the Forms 1040 herein, has therefore failed to comply with the verification requisite of a proper return.
Further, it is well settled that a form purporting to be a valid tax return must contain information sufficient to enable respondent to ascertain and assess the taxpayer's tax liability. Sec. 6011(a); 6Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219 (1944); Edward A. Cupp,supra, and the cases cited therein at p. 79. To the extent that the Forms 1040 filed by petitioner for 1971 and 1972 provided no information in respect of petitioner's income, deductions, etc., such forms do not satisfy the information standard prescribed for a valid return.
Having concluded that petitioner failed to file a valid income tax return for 1971 and for 1972, we further find that the statements included with each of the Forms 1040 whereon petitioner invoked his rights under various constitutional amendments do not suffice to establish reasonable cause so as to obviate imposition of the additions to tax asserted by respondent under section 6651(a) 7 for failure to file a tax return or pay tax. Edward A. Cupp,supra, and the cases referred to therein at 79-80; cf. Garner v. United States,U.S. , fn. 3 at (Mar. 23, 1976) (37 AFTR 2d 76-1042, 76-1 USTC par. 9301).
Focusing on the issue of petitioner's substantive tax liability for the years in issue, we note at the outset that pursuant to section 6001 and the regulations thereunder 8 petitioner was required to maintain books and/or records sufficient to establish his income tax liability. Inasmuch as petitioner failed to maintain or, more precisely, provide any such substantiating material, and absent any information on the respective Forms 1040 filed by petitioner for 1971 and 1972, respondent computed petitioner's taxable income on the basis of the bank deposits method of reconstruction of income, resort to which method is well recognized under such circumstances. See, e.g., Estate of Mary Mason,64 T.C. 651, 656-657 (1975) (on appeal to the Sixth Circuit); John Harper,54 T.C. 1121, 1129 (1970). Petitioner herein has presented no evidence challenging respondent's application of the bank deposits method and determination of tax liability thereby for each of the years in issue. Given petitioner's failure to sustain his burden of proof, we perforce uphold respondent's determination as to petitioner's tax liability for 1971 and 1972. Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; see Estate of Mary Mason,supra, and cases cited therein at 657.
As we more fully discussed in Edward A. Cupp,supra, at 80-81, petitioner's position as to the requirement of legal tender redeemable in gold or silver is without merit and affords petitioner no basis for his noncompliance with the Internal Revenue laws.
Lastly, we must consider imposition of the additions to tax asserted by respondent under section 6653(a) 9 and section 6654 10 for each of the years 1971 and 1972.
Petitioner has the burden of proof on this issue, Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Peter Vaira,supra;Mark Bixby,58 T.C. 757 (1972), which burden petitioner, having proffered no evidence, has not met; accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under sections 6653(a) and 6654 as determined by respondent.
Decision will be entered for the respondent.