Reading v. C. I. R., 79-1466

Decision Date11 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-1466,79-1466
Citation614 F.2d 159
Parties80-1 USTC P 9162 William H. READING and Beverly S. Reading, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

William H. Reading, III, pro se.

M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Wynette J. Hewett, and Stanley S. Shaw, Jr., Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Taxpayers brought suit in the United States Tax Court contesting a deficiency assessment of $2,486.45 by the Commissioner for their 1975 federal income taxes. The deficiency assessment was based on (1) disallowing itemized deductions for housing, food, schooling, and medical expenses (not otherwise deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 213) because those expenses were nondeductible personal living or family expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 262, and (2) a determination that taxpayers owed self-employment taxes on reported self-employment income.

Before the Tax Court taxpayers conceded the disallowed deductions were for living or family expenses but they contended that by disallowing deductions for those expenses Congress exceeded its authority to lay and collect income taxes under the sixteenth amendment, and that income means the gain or income received less the expense of living. The Tax Court rejected taxpayers' claims but redetermined the deficiency to be $2,468.29, and on January 25, 1979, the court entered its decision for the Commissioner. On appeal taxpayers claim they had no income, for income tax purposes, and on appeal they challenge the constitutionality of the tax laws and Tax Court.

The standard of review on appeal from the Tax Court is whether the Tax Court's factual findings are clearly erroneous (See, e. g., Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960); Smith v. Commissioner, 608 F.2d 321, at 322 (8th Cir. 1979)), and "findings of fact are not clearly erroneous unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Smith v. Commissioner, supra, 608 F.2d 321, at 323, Citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394-95, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746, Rehearing denied, 333 U.S. 869, 68 S.Ct. 788, 92 L.Ed. 1147 (1948). The findings of the Tax Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • Johnson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • November 30, 2001
    ...rejected the argument that wages are not income”); see also Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, 1978 WL 3363 (1978), affd. 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir.1980) (entire amount received for services constitutes income); United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir.1983) (argument that wages......
  • Granzow v. C.I.R.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • April 19, 1984
    ...cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 249, 78 L.Ed.2d 237 (1983); Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, 734 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir.1980); Hayward v. Day, 619 F.2d 716, 717 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 2951, 64 L.Ed.2d 830 (1980). Cf. Broughton v. Unit......
  • Rowlee v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • June 15, 1983
    ...position has been repeatedly rejected by this and other courts. See, e.g., Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), affd. 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980), in which the Court said: It is difficult, if not impossible, to respond to arguments such as petitioners have put forth without becomin......
  • Wellman v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • March 4, 1985
    ...what he spend to satisfy his human needs." Reading v. Commissioner Dec. 35,354, 70 T. C. 730, 734 (1978), affd. 80-1 USTC ¶ 9162 614 F. 2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980). "Although the wages gross income received by petitioner may represent no more than the time-value of his work, they are nonetheless......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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