- 7 -
Moreover, as the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has
remarked: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with
somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so
might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit."
Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Suffice it to say that petitioner is a taxpayer, and that
compensation for personal services is income. E.g., United
States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981)
("Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages
or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this
republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently
applicable."). See also sec. 61(a)(1), (2), and (4), defining
gross income to include compensation for services, gross income
derived from business, and interest, respectively.
Because the petition fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, we will grant so much of respondent's
motion that moves to dismiss. See Scherping v. Commissioner, 747
F.2d 478 (8th Cir. 1984). Because there is no merit whatsoever
in petitioner's Motion For Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction,
we will deny that motion.
We turn now to that part of respondent's motion that moves
for an award of a penalty against petitioner under section
6673(a).
As relevant herein, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax
Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011