Hartman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Decision Date15 December 1975
Docket NumberDocket No. 7309-72.
PartiesRAYMOND M. HARTMAN, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
CourtU.S. Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Raymond M. Hartman, pro se.

Held, petitioner's failure to file a return cannot avoid the determination of a deficiency against him under sec. 6211(a), I.R.C. 1954. Held, further, that sec. 6020(b)(1), I.R.C. 1954, does not require respondent to file a return for petitioner before issuing a statutory notice of deficiency. Held, further, that sec. 6020(b)(2), I.R.C. 1954, does not require that a statutory notice of deficiency be made under oath. Held, further, that placing the burden of proof on petitioner does not violate any of his constitutional rights. Held, further, that petitioner's other assertions relating to a grant of immunity by this Court, the ordering of respondent to institute a civil action in the United States District Court, and the power of this Court to issue subpoenas are without merit.

OPINION

TANNENWALD, Judge:

Petitioner has filed a number of pretrial motions with this Court. Remaining for our consideration are the following:

+-----------------------------------+
                ¦Date filed   ¦Motion               ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦                     ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦Nov. 16, 1973¦Notice of Exercise of¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦Fourth & Fifth       ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦Amendment Rights and ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦Motion for Removal to¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦U.S. District Court  ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦                     ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦Dec. 5, 1973 ¦Motion for Discovery ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦                     ¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦Dec. 31, 1973¦Motion to Dismiss the¦
                +-------------+---------------------¦
                ¦             ¦Deficiency, etc.     ¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                

This Court has, by order, already disposed of many of the elements of petitioner's demands. In large degree, the rationale for such dispositions has been articulated in Edward A. Cupp, 65 T.C. 68 (1975,1 and we see no purpose to be served by any reiteration herein. Petitioner does expand the allegations dealt with in Cupp by asserting that our refusal to allow him to be represented in these proceedings by Jerome Daly (who is a disbarred attorney and not authorized to practice before this Court) constitutes a conspiracy among this Court, the American Bar Association, and various local bar associations in violation of the antitrust laws and of petitioner's first amendment rights, fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and an apparently penumbral right of free conscience. Although our discussion in Cupp focused on the right to counsel under the sixth amendment, we are equally satisfied that no such right is subsumed, as petitioner asserts, under any constitutional concepts of freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly, and religion, or any privilege against self-incrimination, or any right of free conscience (which, in any event, we are unable to perceive as having any independently generated constitutional basis). In respect of any violation of the antitrust laws, petitioner's remedy, if any, must be found in another forum. Cf. Hartman v. Tannenwald, cited in n. 1 supra.

Raymond M. Hartman (hereinafter Hartman or petitioner) filed joint income tax returns with his wife, Catherine, for the years 1967 and 1968. On his 1969 income tax return (Form 1040), dated April 15, 1970, petitioner stated only his name, address, social security number, and filing status (single). On a one-page attachment, he explained that he was not furnishing any other information, based on the ‘common law, Declaration of Independence, United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions,‘ and various sections of the United States Code. Under date of May 8, 1971, he filed a new document which he wished to have considered a part of his 1969 return. This voluminous document, accompanied by $20 (‘Fiat Paper,‘ according to petitioner), consisted of photocopies of parts of a Form 1040, various arguments that dollars are bogus and the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional, and many other copied items, none of which was relevant to his income or deductions for 1969. Under date of April 15, 1971, petitioner filed a document accompanied by a payment of $25 ‘Fiat Paper’ which he requested be considered his tax return for 1970. This latter document is almost identical to the one dated May 8, 1971.

A notice of deficiency, dated June 19, 1972, was issued, determining the following deficiencies and additions to tax:

+-------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦            ¦Addition to tax                    ¦
                +------+------------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦      ¦            ¦2 Sec. 6651(a),  ¦Sec. 6653(a),  ¦
                +------+------------+-------------------+---------------¦
                ¦Year  ¦Income tax  ¦I.R.C. 1954        ¦I.R.C. 1954    ¦
                +------+------------+-------------------+---------------¦
                ¦      ¦            ¦                   ¦               ¦
                +------+------------+-------------------+---------------¦
                ¦1969  ¦$4,016.24   ¦$1,004.06          ¦$200.81        ¦
                +------+------------+-------------------+---------------¦
                ¦1970  ¦3,779.10    ¦944.78             ¦188.96         ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------+
                

Schedule A, attached to the notice, shows that the deficiency was computed by averaging petitioner's net profits for 1967 and 1968, adding petitioner's average other income for 1967 and 1968, and deriving average adjusted gross income. This figure and a standard deduction were used to compute petitioner's unreported taxable income.

Petitioner has consistently refused to produce his books and records for examination by respondent.

In his motion to dismiss the deficiency, etc., petitioner argues that the notice of deficiency is invalid and hence we must dismiss it. In the alternative, he argues that the burden of proof should be shifted to respondent.

As to the invalidity of the notice of deficiency, petitioner first points to two sections of the Code:

SEC. 6201. ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OR DELEGATE.— The Secretary or his delegate is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1) TAXES SHOWN ON RETURN.— The Secretary or his delegate shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary or his delegate as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

SEC. 6020. RETURNS PREPARED FOR OR EXECUTED BY SECRETARY.

(b) EXECUTION OF RETURN BY SECRETARY.—

(1) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY TO EXECUTE RETURN.— If any person fails to make any return (other than a declaration of estimated tax required under section 6015) required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary or his delegate shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

(2) STATUS OF RETURNS.— Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary or his delegate shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.

He then argues:

By law all taxes, deficiencies, determinations or penalties must be based on taxes shown on a return prepared either by the taxpayer, who is the (petitioner) herein, or by the Secretary or his delegate, who is the (respondent) herein.

Petitioner concedes (and correctly so) that he filed no ‘return’ within the meaning of the statute. Edward A. Cupp, supra. Thus, the question before us is: Does section 6020(b)(1) require the Commissioner to make a return for every taxpayer who fails or refuses to do so before a deficiency can be determined pursuant to section 6201? We think not.

In United States v. Harrison, an unreported case (E.D.N.Y. 1972, 30 AFTR 2d 72-5367, 72-2 USTC Para. 9573), affd. —- F.2d —— (2d Cir. 1972, 31 AFTR 2d 73-967, 73-1 USTC Para. 9295), cert. denied 411 U.S. 965 (1973), the District Court ably traced the legislative history of section 6020(b), a history extending back to the 1806's, and concluded that there was nothing to show that Congress ever intended the statute to operate as the taxpayer there, and petitioner here, would have us hold. When section 6020(b) is lifted out of the Code and read literally, as petitioner has done, its scope is broad and its meaning and purpose hazy. But the Internal Revenue Code cannot be so read, for each section is not a self-contained whole, but rather a building block of a complex, interrelated statute. Based on its location in chapter 61 and the lack of any cross-references (other than to the word ‘return’), section 6020(b) is not to be read as a prerequisite to the Commissioner's proceeding under section 6201(a)(1) (ch. 63.). United States v. Harrison, supra.

Petitioner also argues that there has been no valid determination of a deficiency because there was no return filed by him. Section 6211(a) reads as follows:

SEC. 6211. DEFINITION OF A DEFICIENCY.

(a) IN GENERAL.— For purposes of this title in the case of income, estate, gift, and excise taxes, imposed by subtitles A and B, and chapter 42, the term ‘deficiency’ means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B or chapter 42 exceeds the excess of—

(1) the sum of

(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
106 cases
  • Matter of Rosemiller
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Jersey
    • 25 Agosto 1995
    ...the notice prepared, on that basis. See also Christensen v. United States, 733 F.Supp. 844, 852 (D.N.J.1990); Hartman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 542 (1975). Id. We conclude that the failure of the IRS to produce adequate substitute returns for the tax periods in question d......
  • Geiselman v. U.S., s. 91-1501
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 31 Marzo 1992
    ...the notice prepared, on that basis. See also Christensen v. United States, 733 F.Supp. 844, 852 (D.N.J.1990); Hartman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 542 (1975). Under 26 U.S.C. § 6203, an assessment is made "by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secre......
  • Tilley v. U.S., 1:02CV629.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 11 Julio 2003
    ...a notice of deficiency without having to file a formal substitute return on behalf of the taxpayer. Hartman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 542, 546, 1975 WL 3038 (1975); see Schiff v. United States, Civil No. N-86-354(WWE), 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9551, 1989 WL 119410, *2, ......
  • U.S. v. Verkuilen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 27 Octubre 1982
    ...failure to file a proper income tax form is not. Such distinctions are unpersuasive. Moreover, the tax court in Hartman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 542 (1975), held that 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)(1) does not make it mandatory that the Secretary of the Treasury file a tax return b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT