- 6 - The arguments made by petitioners are without factual and legal foundation and appear to represent a protest of the Federal tax laws. These types of tax protester arguments have been heard by this Court on many occasions and rejected. We see no need to respond to each of petitioners' arguments with copious citations of precedent. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). In short, petitioners are taxpayers subject to the income tax laws. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 406-407 (1984). Petitioners' argument that they are not taxpayers is frivolous. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986). Gross income, pursuant to section 61, means all income from whatever source derived and includes income realized in any form, whether in money, property, or services. Since petitioners were citizens and residents of the United States and earned their income in the United States, their income comes within the general definition of gross income under section 61. Moreover, under section 7701(a)(1) petitioners were "persons" and were required, under section 6012, to file Federal income tax returns, and pay the income tax due thereon. The authority of Congress to impose and collect Federal income taxes from individuals has long been upheld as constitutional. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961); O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939); Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U.S. 339 (1918).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011