Tuckett v. Commissioner

• Decision Date: 19 September 1983
• Docket Number: Docket No. 18307-81.
• Citation: 1983 TC Memo 575,46 TCM (CCH) 1413
• Parties: Dean Tuckett and Marie Tuckett v. Commissioner.
• Court: U.S. Tax Court

46 TCM (CCH) 1413

1983 TC Memo 575

T.C. Memo. 1983-575.

Dean Tuckett and Marie Tuckett v. Commissioner.

Docket No. 18307-81.

United States Tax Court.

Filed September 19, 1983.

Dean Tuckett and Marie Tuckett, pro se, Chester, Idaho. Ralph W. Jones, for the respondent.

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

CANTREL, Special Trial Judge:

This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, on June 27, 1983.¹ Therein respondent seeks summary adjudication in his favor on the legal issues at bar, i.e., the determined income tax deficiencies and the additions to the tax under sections 6653(a),² 6653(b) and 6654.³

Respondent, in a separate notice of deficiency issued to each petitioner on April 13, 1981, determined deficiencies in each petitioner's Federal income tax and additions to the tax for the taxable calendar years 1977 to 1979, inclusive, in the following respective amounts:

                                     DEAN TUCKETT
                                                 Additions to Tax
                                     Income        I. R. C. 1954
                  Years                Tax     Sec. 6653(b)  Sec. 6654
                  1977 .........  $1,316.00    $658.00       $18.00
                  1978 .........   1,609.00     805.00        49.00
                  1979 .........   1,475.00     738.00        50.00
                 

                                     MARIE TUCKETT
                                                  Additions to Tax
                                    Income         I. R. C. 1954
                  Years               Tax          Sec. 6653(a)
                  1977 ............ $1,217.00         $61.00
                  1978 ............  1,609.00          80.00
                  1979 ............  1,475.00          74.00
                

The sole income adjustments determined by respondent in his deficiency notices are for wages received by petitioners in 1977, 1978 and 1979 computed as follows:

                                               DEAN TUCKETT'S NOTICE
                              Employer                            1977          1978          1979
                  Idaho Stud Mill (Mr. Tuckett) ..................... $17,000.00    $18,873.00    $21,319.00
                  Me N Stans (Mrs. Tuckett) .........................   3,256.00      3,702.00        146.00
                  Speedee Cleaners (Mrs. Tuckett) ................... ..........    ..........      1,415.00
                                                                      __________    __________    __________
                      TOTAL WAGES ................................... $20,256.00    $22,575.00    $22,880.00
                  Less: spouse's one-half share ..................... (10,128.00)   (11,287.00)   (11,440.00)
                                                                      __________    __________    __________
                  Mr. Tuckett's one-half community share4 ...... $10,128.00    $11,288.00    $11,440.00
                                                                      ==========    ==========    ==========
                                               MARIE TUCKETT'S NOTICE
                              Employer                             1977         1978           1979
                  Idaho Stud Mill (Mr. Tuckett) ..................... $17,000.00    $18,873.00    $21,319.00
                  Me N Stans (Mrs. Tuckett) .........................   3,256.00      3,702.00        146.00
                  Speedee Cleaners (Mrs. Tuckett) ...................  .........    ..........      1,415.00
                                                                      __________    __________    __________
                      TOTAL WAGES ................................... $20,256.00    $22,575.00    $22,880.00
                

                  Less: spouse's one-half share ..................... (10,128.00)   (11,288.00)   (11,440.00)
                  Mrs. Tuckett's one-half community share ...........  10,128.00     11,287.00     11,440.00
                  Less: Amount reported5 .......................  (3,256.00)    (3,703.00)    (1,561.00)
                                                                      __________    __________    __________
                  Increase to wage income ........................... $ 6,872.00    $ 7,584.00    $ 9,879.00
                                                                      ==========    ==========    ==========
                

Petitioners timely mailed⁶ and, thus, timely filed their petition on July 13, 1981. Therein, at paragraphs 4 and 5, they allege —

4. The determination of tax set forth in the said notice (sic) of deficiency is based upon the following errors:

A. The amount allowed by the Commissioner for lawful deductions and expenses is incorrect.

B. The determination, penalties and interest constitute an attempt on the part of the Commissioner to punish Petitioners for asserting their Constitutional right against self-incrimination.

5. The facts upon which petitioners rely, as the basis of their case, are as follows:

A. Petitioners had more lawful deductions and expenses than what was allowed by the Commissioner.⁷

* * *

Respondent filed his answer on September 21, 1981, wherein at paragraphs 7.(a) through (j) he makes affirmative allegations of fact in support of his determinations for the additions to the tax under section 6653(b) against Dean Tuckett, hereinafter called petitioner. Petitioners filed no reply, the time for the filing of which expired on October 30, 1981. Respondent filed no motion under Rule 37(c), the time for the filing of which expired on December 14, 1981. Hence, the affirmative allegations of fact contained in respondent's answer are deemed denied. However, the pleadings are deemed closed and respondent's motion was filed more than 30 days after the pleadings were closed. See Rules 34, 36, 37, 38, 70(a)(2) and 121.

When respondent's attempts to make arrangements with petitioners for informal consultations or communications proved unsuccessful,⁸ he, on April 26, 1982 served a Request for Admissions on petitioners.⁹ On May 24, 1982 petitioners served their answers on respondent, filing the original thereof with the Court on May 27, 1982. Rule 90(c). Therein petitioners admitted some of respondent's requests. However, since respondent determined that many of the answers were inadequate and insufficient he filed a Motion to Review on September 30, 1982. When petitioners did not respond to that motion the Court granted it and directed petitioners to file amended answers on or before November 23, 1982. Petitioners did so. Again many of the answers were deficient and respondent filed a Motion to Impose Sanctions on December 3, 1982. The thrust of respondent's motion was to have the Court deem admitted all of respondent's admissions requests except those few petitioners originally admitted. After hearing at Washington, D.C. on February 16, 1983, the Court granted respondent's motion. As a result of the foregoing, each matter contained in respondent's request for admissions is deemed admitted and conclusively established. See Rule 90(d) and (e).

The following findings of fact are based upon the record as a whole, the allegations of respondent's answer admitting allegations in the petition and those matters deemed admitted and conclusively established with respect to respondent's request for admissions.

Findings of Fact

Petitioners' legal address on the date they filed their petition was Box 165, Chester, Idaho. Petitioner filed no Federal income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service for the taxable years 1977, 1978 and 1979. While Mrs. Tuckett filed individual returns for those years reporting the wages she received she did not report thereon her community share of the wages petitioner received in those years.

On or before April 15, 1977 petitioners filed a joint 1976 Federal income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service on which they reported the wages they received in the aggregate amount of $16,427.00 and paid a tax due thereon of $1,870.00.¹⁰

During each of the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 petitioner was employed by Idaho Stud Mill and he was paid a salary in the respective amounts of $17,033.00, $18,872.69, and $21,318.60.¹¹ He filed no Federal income tax returns for those years.

On April 26, 1973 petitioner filed a Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Exemption Certificate) with his employer whereon he claimed 3 exemptions. On June 21, 1977 he filed a Form W-4E (Exemption from Withholding) with his employer claiming he was exempt from the withholding of Federal income tax. Therein, he advised, under the penalties of perjury, that he anticipated he would incur no liability for Federal income tax for 1976. On January 3, 1978 petitioner submitted a Form W-4E to his employer claiming he was exempt from the withholding of Federal income tax. On March 7, 1978 he filed a Form W-4 with his employer claiming he was a merchant at law and exempt from Federal income tax withholding. On March 22, 1978, January 31, 1979 and April 30, 1980 he filed Forms W-4 with his employer claiming allowances in the respective amounts of 25, 18 and 18.¹²

Petitioner fraudulently, and with intent to evade tax submitted false Forms W-4 and false Forms W-4E to his employer to eliminate the withholding of Federal income tax from his wages in 1977, 1978 and 1979. He fraudulently, and with intent to evade tax, failed to file Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1977 to 1979, inclusive.

Petitioner failed to report taxable community income which he received for the taxable years 1977, 1978 and 1979 in the respective amounts of $10,128.00, $11,288.00 and $11,440.00. He failed to report and pay his income tax liabilities for those years in the amounts of $1,316.00, $1,609.00 and $1,475.00, respectively. A part of the underpayment of tax which petitioner was required to show on an income tax return for the taxable years 1977, 1978 and 1979 is due to fraud with intent to evade tax.

Opinion

Rule 34(b) provides in pertinent part that the petition in a deficiency action shall contain "clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or liability" and "clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error * * *". It is clear to the Court that petitioners are yet others in a seemingly...