Munson v. Commissioner
Opinion
*413
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WILES,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Most of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Petitioner Oscar Munson resided in Barnum, Minnesota, when he filed his 1975 Federal income tax return and when he filed his petition in this case.
*414 During 1975, interest was credited to petitioner's accounts with the following four institutions in amounts as follows:
| Name of Institution | Account Number | Interest Credited |
| First State Savings & Loan | 01025525 | $162.00 |
| of Watertown, Wisconsin | ||
| Mishawaka Federal Savings & | 0000021213 | 194.00 |
| Loan Association of | ||
| Chicago, Illinois | ||
| State Bank of Barnum, | 0000007447 | 139.00 |
| Barnum, Minnesota | ||
| First Wisconsin National | 0001016952 | 18.00 |
| Bank of Eau Claire, Eau | $513.00 | |
| Claire, Wisconsin |
During 1975, petitioner received a lump sum distribution in the amount of $437.00 from the St. LouisUnion Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois.
Petitioner failed to report the interest credited to his accounts and the lump sum distribution, a total of $950, on his 1975 return. In the notice of deficiency, respondent increased petitioner's income by that amount.
OPINION
Section 61(a) 1 defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived. Section 61(a)(4) specifically defines interest as gross income.
Respondent contends that petitioner is required to include in his*415 gross income for 1975 both the $513 in interest credited to his bank and savings and loan association accounts in 1975 and the $437 lump sum distribution received from St. Louis Union Trust Company in 1975. Petitioner does not contest or deny receiving such amounts and, indeed, stipulated that he had received those amounts. He simply argues that he should not be taxed on those amounts because, due to inflation, he needs the interest from his savings to supplement the social security checks he will be receiving when he becomes 62 years of age.
On the basis of his testimony at trial, we are not convinced petitioner seriously believes he is entitled to exclude the amounts at issue from his gross income, but rather failed to report such amounts merely to protest taxation of interest on savings accounts as unduly burdensome. 2 Moreover, petitioner has not established either by reference to a specific provision in the Code or by the introduction of evidence that the entire lump sum distribution received from the St. Louis Union Trust Company is not includable in gross income pursuant to section 61(a).While we can sympathize with petitioner's situation, this Court has noted that "General*416 grievances against the policies of the Goverment, or against the tax system as a whole, are not types of controversies to be resolved in the courts; Congress is the appropriate body to which such matters should be referred."
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. Statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.↩
2. That burden has been obviously recognized by Congress. As part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-223, 94 Stat. 229, Congress has amended
sec. 116, I.R.C. 1954↩ Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1980 T.C. Memo. 167 (Munson v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.