Michaud v. Commissioner

1983 T.C. Memo. 363, 46 T.C.M. 528, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 430
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 20, 1983
DocketDocket No. 26707-81.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1983 T.C. Memo. 363 (Michaud 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
Michaud v. Commissioner, 1983 T.C. Memo. 363, 46 T.C.M. 528, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 430 (tax 1983).

Opinion

MARVIN J. MICHAUD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Michaud v. Commissioner
Docket No. 26707-81.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1983-363; 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 430; 46 T.C.M. (CCH) 528; T.C.M. (RIA) 83363;
June 20, 1983.
Marvin J. Michaud, pro se.
Patrick J. Dowling, for the respondent.

WILES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILES, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax in petitioner's 1978 and 1979 Federal income taxes:

YearDeficiencySec. 6651(a) 1Sec. 6653(a)Sec. 6654(a)
1978$8,468.56$1,862.00$423.43$229.61
19799,663.342,415.84483.17403.91

On May 18, 1982, respondent was granted a partial summary judgment on the issue of petitioner's deficiencies. Thus, the sole issue for decision*431 is whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file income tax returns, for negligence or intentional disregard of respondent's rules and regulations, and for failure to pay estimated tax.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

Petitioner, Marvin J. Michaud, resided in Dunlap, Kansas, at the time of filing the petition herein.

On March 13, 1978, petitioner was ordained a Minister in the Life Science Church. Three days later, petitioner executed a "Vow of Poverty" by which he purported to convey all of his possessions and income to The Order of Almighty God 11,517, a chapter of the Life Science Church. As a result of having taken the "Vow of Poverty," on March 22, 1978, petitioner filed a Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate), claiming to be exempt from the withholding of Federal income taxes from his wages. During the years in issue, petitioner was employed by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company in Topeka, Kansas, and earned wages therefrom of $27,297.12 and $30,641.52 during 1978 and 1979, respectively. Income taxes of only $1,020.55 were withheld from his 1978 wages, and no income taxes were*432 withheld from his wages in 1979.

As of July 24, 1981, petitioner had not filed Federal income tax returns for 1978 or 1979, and on that date respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner asserting the deficiencies and additions to tax as set forth above. On March 22, 1982, petitioner filed Forms 1040 for 1978 and 1979 on which he included his name, address, and Social Security number. On all of the other lines petitioner wrote "Object: Self-incrimination." Appended to the Forms 1040 were 13 pages of materials concerning an individual's rights against self-incrimination.

We must decide whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax determined by respondent. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is not liable for such additions. Welch v. Helvering,290 U.S. 111 (1933), Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

When this case was called for trial, petitioner offered no evidence to rebut the additions to tax determined by respondent in the statutory notice; instead, petitioner invoked the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Nothing in the record, however, establishes that there are any pending*433 or proposed criminal proceedings against petitioner for the years in issue.

On the record before us, petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim is frivolous. Any possible danger of self-incrimination is so remote or speculative that it cannot support a Fifth Amendment claim. 2McCoy v. Commissioner,76 T.C. 1027 (1981), affd. 696 F. 2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a Fifth Amendment claim, even if valid, does not relieve petitioner of his burden of proof. Indelicato v. Commissioner,42 T.C. 686

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

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
United States v. Arthur J. Porth
426 F.2d 519 (Tenth Circuit, 1970)
Indelicato v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 686 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Reaver v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 72 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Cupp v. Commissioner
65 T.C. 68 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)
McCoy v. Commissioner
76 T.C. 1027 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Jarvis v. Commissioner
78 T.C. No. 45 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1983 T.C. Memo. 363, 46 T.C.M. 528, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michaud-v-commissioner-tax-1983.