Cupp v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

• Decision Date: 14 October 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 4828-73.
• Citation: 65 T.C. 68
• Parties: EDWARD A. CUPP, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. Tax Court

65 T.C. 68

EDWARD A. CUPP, PETITIONER

v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

Docket No. 4828-73.

United States Tax Court

Filed October 14, 1975.

Edward A. Cupp, pro se.

Held: 1. A page 1 of a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, which contained no figures as to income and deductions and had deleted above petitioner's signature the words ‘under penalties of perjury’ did not constitute a Federal income tax return for the year 1969, and similar documents did not constitute Federal income tax returns for the years 1970 and 1971; no reasonable cause for failure to file having been shown, the additions to tax for failure to file returns for each of these years are sustained as are the additions to tax for negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.

2. Petitioner failed to show error in the deficiencies as determined by respondent or that the method used by respondent was unreasonable or was in violation of petitioner's rights under the first, fourth, or fifth amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

3. The Federal income tax is not unconstitutional because of taxing amounts received by petitioner in forms other than gold or silver coins.

4. Petitioner's rights under the sixth amendment of the Constitution of the United States were not violated by refusal of the Court to permit him to be represented in the trial of this case by an individual not admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court or any court.

5. Petitioner is not entitled to a jury trial before the United States Tax Court and his rights were not prejudiced when at his request the Judge before whom the trial was held refused to recuse herself.

SCOTT, Judge:

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to taxes for the years and in the amounts as follows:

+-------------------+
                ¦Additions to Tax   ¦
                +-------------------¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦
                +-------------------+
                

Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6653(a) Total  
                1969   $8,928.10    $2,232.03      $596.41        $11,756.54
                1970   14,347.28    3,586.82       717.36         18,651.46
                1971   15,474.84    3,868.71       773.74         1  20,117.20
                

The issues for decision are:

(1) Whether petitioner filed Federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1969, 1970, and 1971 and, if not, whether his failure to file such returns was due to reasonable cause because of his claim of protection against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States; (2) Whether any part of petitioner's underpayment of tax, if any, is due to negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations;

(3) Whether respondent's determination of petitioner's taxable income and income tax deficiencies is in violation of petitioner's rights under the first, fourth, or fifth amendments of the Constitution of the United States and, if not, has petitioner shown error in the deficiencies in tax as determined by respondent;

(4) Whether the Federal income tax is unconstitutional because of taxing amounts received by a petitioner in forms other than gold and silver coins;

(5) Whether petitioner's rights under the sixth amendment of the Constitution of the United States were violated when a person who was not admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court and not an attorney admitted to practice in any State or the District of Columbia was not permitted to represent him in a trial before this Court; and

(6) Whether petitioner was entitled to a jury trial and whether his rights were prejudiced when at his request the Judge before whom the trial was held refused to recuse herself.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner resided in Hopwood, Pa., at the time of the filing of his petition in this case. During the calendar years 1969 through 1971 petitioner was a practicing chiropractor with his office located in Friendsville, Md. Petitioner had been practicing as a chiropractor since the year 1965.

For the calender year 1968 petitioner filed a joint income tax return with Lois J. Cupp on Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, reporting on Schedule C attached thereto gross receipts from his business as a chiropractor in the amount of $31,822.72 and a net profit from this activity of $23,575.48. Petitioner itemized his personal deductions on this income tax return and claimed as exemptions, in addition to himself and his wife, three children. After subtracting from his adjusted gross income the amount of his itemized deductions and $3,000 of exemptions, petitioner showed an amount of $18,986.48 on which he computed his income tax due for the year.

For the calendar year 1969 petitioner filed an application for extension of time for filing his Federal income tax return, which was dated May 14, 1970. Under date of May 17, 1970, the requested extension was denied on the ground that it had been determined that the extension was not warranted and petitioner was allowed 10 days from the date of the notice disallowing the application for extension within which to file his return. Petitioner submitted page 1 of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, which he signed under date of May 28, 1970, and which was stamped ‘received’ by the District Director of Internal Revenue, Pittsburgh, Pa., on June 1, 1970, which contained no information except his name, address, social security number; that his occupation was a chiropractor; and reference to an attached letter. There was deleted from the line above petitioner's signature the words ‘under penalties of perjury.’ The letter attached to this return stated that petitioner was filing his ‘income tax report in this fashion’ because (1) arbitrary interpretation of his tax information by Internal Revenue Service representatives constitutes possible self-incrimination; (2) the tedious work necessary to furnish the information constitutes involuntary servitude; (3) funds raised by income taxes are being used to subsidize Communist revolution and treason throughout the world against his religion; (4) he did not have a minimum of $600 in lawful money backed by silver and gold during the past year and under the Constitution only money backed by silver and gold is legal tender; and (5) the income tax is in violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States since the tax is unequal between the wealthy and low and the middle-income recipients.

For the calendar year 1970 petitioner submitted to the Internal Revenue Service a document which consisted of part of page 1 of a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, which contained his name, address, social security number, and occupation, and recitations of reasons for furnishing no further information, substantially the same in substance as those given in the letter attached to the document he submitted for the year 1969. Attached to this document as ‘Exhibit A’ were copies of the ‘First Coinage Act of April 7, 1792,‘ excerpts from the United States Constitution and excerpts from the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, various excerpts from Federal statutes, Supreme Court opinions and legal dissertations, as well as what appears to be an excerpt from a court proceeding of February 11, 1970, and certain documents prepared by Jerome Daly. Other miscellaneous items included in the attached ‘Exhibit A’ were documents represented to be copies of a communication ‘On the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791— Jefferson to Washington,‘ and ‘Veto of the Bank Renewal Bill— Andrew Jackson, 1832,‘ and documents stated to be opinions of a justice of the peace of the State of Minnesota. On page 4 of the document the following appeared:

The money of account of the United States as expressed in Dollars or Units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths, as coined by Congress with Congress fixing the Standard of weights and measures thereof for the year in question are as follows:

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Gold eagles, units or dollars         ¦No.¦0    ¦$¦       ¦       ¦
                +--------------------------------------+---+-----+-+-------+-------¦
                ¦Silver dollars                        ¦No.¦0    ¦$¦       ¦       ¦
                +--------------------------------------+---+-----+-+-------+-------¦
                ¦Silver half dollars                   ¦No.¦10 ? ¦$¦5.00 ? ¦       ¦
                +--------------------------------------+---+-----+-+-------+-------¦
                ¦Silver quarters                       ¦No.¦10 ? ¦$¦2.50 ? ¦       ¦
                +--------------------------------------+---+-----+-+-------+-------¦
                ¦Silver half dimes                     ¦No.¦0    ¦$¦       ¦       ¦
                +--------------------------------------+---+-----+-+-------+-------¦
                ¦Nickles                               ¦No.¦0    ¦$¦       ¦       ¦
                +--------------------------------------+---+-----+-+-------+-------¦
                ¦Pennies or cents                      ¦No.¦0    ¦$¦       ¦       ¦
                +--------------------------------------+---+-----+-+-------+-------¦
                ¦Silver dimes                          ¦No.¦0    ¦$¦       ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Total Income As Expressed In Monies of Account of the U.S.¦$7.50 ?¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

[Reproduced literally.]

On page 10 of the document, without any statement with respect to penalties of perjury or declaration of correctness or completeness, petitioner's signature appeared as did the date April 15, 1971. Beneath petitioner's signature appeared the following:

TO THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Sir:

Please answer the questions raised in the foregoing return fully in writing by return mail. If you or any of your agents have any further questions please write.

Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation I remain,

Very truly yours,

(S) Edward A. Cupp

Dated, April 15, 1971 The document submitted by petitioner bears the stamp ‘Received April 16, 1971, MASC’ (Mid-Atlantic...