- 5 -
arguments, based on these theories, have no merit. Rowlee v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-1122 (1983). Petitioner's
argument that he does not hold the status of "taxpayer" is
frivolous. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir.
1986).
Gross income, under section 61, means all income from
whatever source derived and includes income realized in any form,
whether in money, property, or services. Under section 1.61-1,
Income Tax Regs., gross income means all income from whatever
source derived, unless excluded by law. Since petitioner was a
citizen and resident of the United States and earned his income
in the United States, his income comes within the general defini-
tion of gross income under section 61. There is no exclusion
from taxation for such income. Moreover, under section 7701(a)(1)
petitioner was a "person" and was 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 constitu-
tional. 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).
Petitioner contends that he was a citizen of the Republic of
Colorado during the years in issue and not a citizen of the
United States. This argument is no more than a stale tax
protester contention that has long been dismissed summarily by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011