Brobeck v. Commissioner, Docket No. 7849-76
| Decision Date | 08 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 7849-76,7309-77,7424-77. |
| Citation | 1980 TC Memo 239,40 TCM (CCH) 594 |
| Parties | Harold W. Brobeck, et al. v. Commissioner. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
Harold W. Brobeck, pro se, 1202 Third St., Beaver, Pa. Joseph M. Abele, for the respondent.
Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax against petitioner as follows:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Addition Addition
Docket Taxable Deficiency to Tax to Tax
No. Petitioner Year in Tax Sec. 6653(b)2 Sec. 6654
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
7849-76 Harold W. Brobeck 1972 $23,353.75 $11,676.88 —0—
7309-77 Harold W. Brobeck, 1/ 1/71 to
transferee 7/19/71 $13,075.84 $ 6,537.92 —0—
7424-77 Harold W. Brobeck 1970 $28,442.10 $14,221.05 $ 907.19
1971 69,498.73 34,739.48 2,202.67
1973 61,529.34 30,764.67 1,961.38
1974 31,987.80 15,993.90 1,020.78
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Concessions having been made by respondent, six issues remain to be decided:
(1) Whether documents filed by petitioner with the District Director of Internal Revenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, constitute Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974;
(2) Whether the statute of limitations bars assessment and collection of the tax and additions to the tax from petitioner for the taxable years 1970 through 1974 or from Beaver Valley Volkswagen, Inc., for its taxable year 1971;
(3) Whether petitioner has proved that there is no deficiency in tax for the taxable years 1970 through 1974 or that the addition to tax under section 6654 was improperly determined;
(4) Whether respondent has proved that petitioner is a transferee of property of Beaver Valley Volkswagen, Inc.;
(5) Whether respondent has proved that any part of any underpayment of tax is due to fraud as provided by section 6653(b); and
(6) Whether petitioner's various constitutional arguments are meritorious.
None of the facts in these three consolidated cases have been stipulated. In each case, respondent prepared, filed, and served a request for admissions pursuant to Rule 90, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Also, in docket No. 7849-76, respondent prepared, filed, and served a request for additional admissions pursuant to the same rule. Petitioner prepared, filed, and served responses to the four requests. Each response was substantially the same, consisting of a statement to the effect that, after reasonable inquiry, petitioner lacked the information or knowledge to admit or deny any of the requested admissions; therefore, petitioner denied each and every requested admission.
Pursuant to Rule 90(d), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, respondent filed a motion in each of these three consolidated cases asking this Court to review the sufficiency of petitioner's answers and to order that all of the requested admissions be deemed admitted. The motions were set for hearing in Washington, D.C., on August 23, 1978. Petitioner filed motions for a thirty-day continuance of the hearing, averring that he had answered the requests in good faith and was continuing to search for his books and records. We denied petitioner's motions for continuance upon a showing by respondent that petitioner had not made a good faith attempt to answer the requests for admission, that petitioner's motions for continuance were filed as a tactic for delay, and that the granting of petitioner's motions would have delayed the hearing beyond the date set for trial of the cases.3 We granted respondent's motions to review the sufficiency of petitioner's answers to the requested admissions. After thoroughly reviewing both the requested admissions and petitioner's answers thereto, we ordered that the requested admissions be deemed admitted. The admissions and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
For the taxable years 1968 and 1969, petitioner and his wife filed joint Federal income tax returns. They reported adjusted gross income for those years in the respective amounts of $33,332 and $42,783, which amounts included wages, dividend and interest income, and income from rental property. On the income tax return for 1968, petitioner and his wife claimed a short-term capital loss and two long-term capital losses. On the return for 1969 they claimed a long-term capital loss.
For the taxable years 1970 through 1974, petitioner submitted certain documents to the District Director of Internal Revenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as his Federal income tax returns and amended returns. The documents submitted by petitioner for the taxable years 1970 through 1974 are described below.
On April 9, 1971, petitioner submitted an eighty-page document to Teller No. 1 for the District Director of Internal Revenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The first pages of the document contain most of the first page of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, which has been cut into three segments and interrupted by text. The segments of the form contain petitioner's name, address, social security number, and occupation (self-employed). No income from wages, dividends or interest is reported, but $1,700 of "other income" is reported. No deductions or credits are set forth. An amount of tax is computed accordingly. The signature box from the Form 1040 is appended and signed by petitioner, but without any declaration under penalty of perjury as to the truth, correctness, or completeness of the document. Beneath petitioner's signature appeared the following:
Very truly yours /s/ Harold W. Brobeck
In addition to the fragmented Form 1040, the first ten pages of the document contain quotations from "the First Coinage Act of April 2, 1792," arguments concerning the definition of a "dollar," arguments concerning the validity of Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender, excerpts from the Constitution of the United States, excerpts from the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and arguments under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States concerning the reasons why petitioner need not fill out a Form 1040 as designed by the Treasury Department. On page four of the document, the amount of "other income" reported by petitioner was explained as follows:
Appended to the foregoing document are the following: excerpts from judicial opinions, a purported transcript of court proceedings, a quotation from Henry David Thoreau, and a copy of "The Daly Eagle" dated February 7, 1969, which contains documents alleged to be opinions of a justice of the peace of the State of Minnesota. The foregoing document purported to be petitioner's Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1970, but it did not constitute such a return.
On March 8, 1972, petitioner submitted a ninety-page document to Teller No. 1 for the District Director of Internal Revenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The cover page is a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, which contains petitioner's name, address, social security number, occupation (businessman), claim of exemptions, and signature. No income from wages, dividends, or interest is reported, but $4,127.25 of "other income" is reported. No deductions or credits are set forth. An amount of tax is computed accordingly. The perjury clause above petitioner's signature is obliterated. Appended to the Form 1040 are pages of text which are substantially the same as those which accompanied the segments of petitioner's Form 1040 in the document submitted for the previous taxable year. On page five of the document, the amount of "other income" reported by petitioner was explained as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial