Vinz v. Commissioner

1984 T.C. Memo. 84, 47 T.C.M. 1128, 1984 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 589
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 1984
DocketDocket No. 26528-82
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1984 T.C. Memo. 84 (Vinz 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
Vinz v. Commissioner, 1984 T.C. Memo. 84, 47 T.C.M. 1128, 1984 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 589 (tax 1984).

Opinion

JEFFREY M. VINZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Vinz v. Commissioner
Docket No. 26528-82
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1984-84; 1984 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 589; 47 T.C.M. (CCH) 1128; T.C.M. (RIA) 84084;
February 22, 1984.

*589 Held: Petitioner's compensation and interest (paid in Federal Reserve Notes) is income subject to taxation. Additions to tax are sustained.

Jeffrey M. Vinz, pro se.
Steven R. Guest, for the respondent.

CHABOT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHABOT, Judge: Respondent*590 determined deficiencies in individual income tax and additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) 1 (failure to file timely return) and 6653(a) (negligence, etc.) against petitioner as follows:

Additions of Tax
YearDeficiencySec. 6651(a)(1)Sec. 6653(a)
1979$1,8730$94
19802,029$88101

The issues for decision are as follows:

(1) Whether petitioner is taxable on compensation for his labor, and interest, such compensation and interest having been paid in Federal Reserve Notes.

(2) Whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) (relating to failure to file a timely return).

(3) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a) (relating to negligence or intentional disregard of rules of regulations).

The instant case has been submitted fully stipulated; the stipulation and the stipulated exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.

When the petition in the instant case was filed, petitioner resided in Hartford, Wisconsin.

*591 During 1979 and 1980, petitioner performed labor for International Stamping Co., Inc., Hartford (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Stamping"). In exchange for this labor, Stamping paid to petitioner in Federal Reserve Notes, $13,093 and $13,720, in 1979 and 1980, respectively. Petitioner's labors were worth at least as much as Stamping paid for them.Petitioner also received interest from the First National Bank of Hartford in the amount of $49 for 1979 and $52 for 1980.

Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for 1979 and 1980.

On or about April 4, 1979, petitioner filed with Stamping a Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate) showing that he claimed "O" allowances for withholding purposes and asking that Stamping withhold an additional $5 for each pay period. On or about November 13, 1979, petitioner filed with Stamping a Form W-4 on which he claimed he was exempt from withholding. On or about April 30, 1980, petitioner filed with Stamping a Form W-4 on which he claimed that he did not owe any Federal income tax for 1979, did not expect to owe any such tax for 1980, had a right to a full refund of any such tax that was withheld, and was exempt*592 from witholding. Notwithstanding the Forms W-4 of November 13, 1979, and April 30, 1980, $1,929 was withheld from petitioner's compensation in 1979 and $1,676 in 1980.

Under section 61(a), 2 petitioner is required to include in gross income for any of the years in issue the compensation he received for his services, and the interest he received, in that year.

Petitioner's arguments to the contrary are unavailing for the following reasons: (1) The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution removed any requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the States in accordance with a census or enumeration. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.,240 U.S. 1 (1916); consequently, it removed the necessity of determining whether the tax was an excise imposed because the taxpayer exercised*593 a privilege (as in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,220 U.S. 107 (1911)). (2) Compensation for services is income, taxable under the Internal Revenue Code. Commissioner v. Duberstein,363 U.S. 278 (1960); Rowlee v. Commissioner,80 T.C. 1111, 1119-1122 (1983), on appeal (CA2, Sep. 13, 1983); Reiff v. Commissioner,

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1984 T.C. Memo. 84, 47 T.C.M. 1128, 1984 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinz-v-commissioner-tax-1984.