Ueckert v. Commissioner

1983 T.C. Memo. 54, 45 T.C.M. 602, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 732
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 31, 1983
DocketDocket No. 21315-80.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1983 T.C. Memo. 54 (Ueckert 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
Ueckert v. Commissioner, 1983 T.C. Memo. 54, 45 T.C.M. 602, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 732 (tax 1983).

Opinion

MARTIN J. UECKERT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Ueckert v. Commissioner
Docket No. 21315-80.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1983-54; 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 732; 45 T.C.M. (CCH) 602; T.C.M. (RIA) 83054;
January 31, 1983.
Martin J. Ueckert, pro se.
Randy G. Durfee, for the respondent.

DAWSON

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

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

Additions to Tax
YearDeficiencySec. 6651(a)Sec. 6653(a)Sec. 6654 1
1976$4,200.03$1,050.01$210.00$156.42
19774,092.301,023.08204.62145.63
*734

The issues for decision are (1) whether, in the absence of adequate records, respondent correctly determined petitioner's taxable income for 1976 and 1977 by the bank deposit method; (2) whether petitioner, relying on a general Fifth Amendment claim, failed to carry his burden of proving error in respondent's deficiency determinations; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under sections 6651(a), 6653(a) and 6654.

No facts have been stipulated. Consequently, the pertinent facts, as contained in this record and the pleadings, are summarized below.

Petitioner resided in Beach, North Dakota, at the time he filed his petition in this case.

During the years 1976 and 1977 the petitioner was a self-employed custom operator who performed services for farmers in the Beach, North Dakota, area. In those years he maintained a bank account (No. 5467-4) at the Farmers and Merchants Bank in Beach to which he made periodic deposits totaling $17,224.76 in 1976 and $15,801.68 in 1977.

On April 15, 1977, petitioner*735 filed with the Internal Revenue Service at Ogden, Utah, a Form 1040 for 1976 on which he reported no income, credits, deductions or tax liability. On each pertinent line of the Form 1040 appears the word "object." Attached thereto are 47 pages of materials raising various constitutional objections. By a subsequent letter dated April 14, 1978, petitioner requested that the Form 1040 be amended by deleting the 47 pages and substituting therefor a 12 page memorandum attached to his Form 1040 for the year 1977.

On or about April 15, 1978, petitioner filed with the Internal Revenue Service at Ogden, Utah, a Form 1040 for 1977 on which he reported no income credits, deductions or tax liability. On each pertinent line of the form appears the word "object" and on page 2 thereof appears the following statement: "The entry (object) indicates that I assert my privilege to the Fifth Amendment. The attached twelve pages of memoranda are to be considered a part of this return."

The two Forms 1040 for 1976 and 1977 were not accepted by the Internal Revenue Service as valid Federal income tax returns.

Since the petitioner either failed to keep adequate records of his income and expenses or*736 refused to make them available to respondent's agents, the taxable income of petitioner was determined by the bank deposit method. 2 After allowing for nontaxable deposits and cash withheld, respondent determined that the petitioner had taxable income of $14,949.76 in 1976 and $14,712.68 in 1977. Respondent allowed a standard deduction and a zero bracket amount, as the case may be, of $1,400 and a personal exemption of $750.

*737 On April 19, 1982, the Chief Judge denied petitioner's request for a grant of immunity because this Court has no authority to provide petitioner with immunity in this proceeding. See Hartman v. Commissioner,65 T.C. 542, 547-548 (1975). The Court also denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment based on Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, and his motion for continuance.

There is no evidence herein that petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. Requiring a taxpayer to produce records or face dismissal constitutes no invasion of privacy or unlawful search or seizure. Edwards v. Commissioner,

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

Related

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad
240 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1916)
Florsheim Brothers Drygoods Co. v. United States
280 U.S. 453 (Supreme Court, 1930)
Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
United States v. Murdock
290 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co.
321 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner
353 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court, 1957)
United States v. Bisceglia
420 U.S. 141 (Supreme Court, 1975)
United States v. Nathan Stein
437 F.2d 775 (Seventh Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Jerome Daly
481 F.2d 28 (Eighth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. John R. Morse, and Alice Morse
491 F.2d 149 (First Circuit, 1974)
Emma R. Dorl v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
507 F.2d 406 (Second Circuit, 1974)
Norman and Viola Calhoun v. United States
591 F.2d 1243 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Edelson, Joseph
604 F.2d 232 (Third Circuit, 1979)
United States v. David N. Moore
627 F.2d 830 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)
Gleckman v. United States
80 F.2d 394 (Eighth Circuit, 1935)
Sanders v. Commissioner
21 T.C. 1012 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1983 T.C. Memo. 54, 45 T.C.M. 602, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ueckert-v-commissioner-tax-1983.