John L. Jones, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross

Sixth Circuit

John L. Jones, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross

688 F.2d 17, 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5718, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25943

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 2, 1982

Docket81-1105, 81-1053

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 688 F.2d 17 (John L. Jones, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John L. Jones, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross, 688 F.2d 17, 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5718, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25943 (6th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Petitioner appeals from a decision of the Tax Court which determined a deficiency in his federal income tax for 1977. The respondent cross-appeals from the determination which was termed a “net deficiency” rather than the statutory deficiency as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6211(a). This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the briefs, record and appendix, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In its decision, the Tax Court rejected petitioner’s argument that his wages were paid in “depreciated bank notes” not backed by gold or silver specie and, thus, were not subject to the income tax. This claim is clearly without merit and has been rejected in numerous opinions. E.g., United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 967, 97 S.Ct. 2924, 53 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1977). Therefore, to the extent that the Tax Court’s decision holds petitioner’s deduction was correctly disallowed and he owes a deficiency for 1977, it is affirmed.

The respondent’s challenge addresses an ambiguity in the Tax Gourt’s opinion. The respondent found a statutory deficiency as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6211(a)(1) of $6,690.08. An addition to the tax of $98.27 was also made. The Court agreed with this determination, but subtracted the amount of federal taxes which had been withheld from petitioner’s wages to ascertain a net deficiency of $1,965.34. The final decision used the term deficiency without further explanation. Because the precise meaning of the decision remains unclear,

It is ORDERED that the decision of the Tax Court be affirmed in part, Rule 9(d)3, Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and vacated in part and the decision is remanded to the Tax Court for entry of a decision finding a statutory deficiency under Section 6211(a)(1) of $6,690.08 with an addition to the tax of $98.27. Rule 9(d)4, Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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

ORDER

Petitioner appeals from a decision of the Tax Court which determined a deficiency in his federal income tax for 1977. The respondent cross-appeals from the determination which was termed a “net deficiency” rather than the statutory deficiency as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6211(a). This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the briefs, record and appendix, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In its decision, the Tax Court rejected petitioner’s argument that his wages were paid in “depreciated bank notes” not backed by gold or silver specie and, thus, were not subject to the income tax. This claim is clearly without merit and has been rejected in numerous opinions. E.g., United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 967, 97 S.Ct. 2924, 53 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1977). Therefore, to the extent that the Tax Court’s decision holds petitioner’s deduction was correctly disallowed and he owes a deficiency for 1977, it is affirmed.

The respondent’s challenge addresses an ambiguity in the Tax Gourt’s opinion. The respondent found a statutory deficiency as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6211(a)(1) of $6,690.08. An addition to the tax of $98.27 was also made. The Court agreed with this determination, but subtracted the amount of federal taxes which had been withheld from petitioner’s wages to ascertain a net deficiency of $1,965.34. The final decision used the term deficiency without further explanation. Because the precise meaning of the decision remains unclear,

It is ORDERED that the decision of the Tax Court be affirmed in part, Rule 9(d)3, Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and vacated in part and the decision is remanded to the Tax Court for entry of a decision finding a statutory deficiency under Section 6211(a)(1) of $6,690.08 with an addition to the tax of $98.27. Rule 9(d)4, Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 F.2d 17, 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5718, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-l-jones-cross-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-cross-ca6-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack