Daniel L. Fa'asamala and Yvette S. Fa'asamala - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          considered by members of Congress.  Marriage Tax Elimination Act,           
          H.R. 2456, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. sec. 2 (1997); Marriage Penalty           
          Relief Act, H.R. 2593, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. sec. 2 (1997).                
          This does not change the fact that they are liable for the tax in           
          accord with the current requirements of the law.                            
               Petitioners’ legal arguments regarding whether their wages             
          are taxable income are principally founded on the reasoning that            
          the term or concept of “income” is not defined in the Internal              
          Revenue Code.  Petitioners’ arguments and reasoning ignore a                
          substantial amount of case law developed by Federal courts at all           
          levels that has interpreted the statutory wording provided by               
          Congress.  The volume of this case material is too extensive to             
          be referenced here.  In that regard, we are not obligated to                
          exhaustively review and/or rebut petitioners’ misguided                     
          contentions.  Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir.                
          1984).  Petitioners’ disagreement with the law belongs in another           
          forum.                                                                      
               Petitioners’ wages, as reported by them to respondent, and             
          $14 of interest income reported to respondent by a third party              














Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011