- 4 -
In the notice of deficiency,4 respondent determined that
petitioners received Social Security benefits in 1996 and that a
portion of such benefits was subject to income tax. See sec. 86.
Subsequently, respondent concluded that such benefits do not have
tax consequences to petitioners in 1996, and respondent conceded
the deficiency in full.5
OPINION
Petitioners seek relief that goes beyond respondent’s
concession that petitioners are not liable for any deficiency in
income tax for 1996. Basically, petitioners request the Court to
issue a mandatory injunction requiring respondent to (1)
eliminate the Presidential campaign election checkoff from the
Form 1040-series of individual income tax returns and (2) revise
the instructions for Form 1040EZ regarding the reporting of
Social Security benefits.
Regarding their first request, petitioners contend that
because the President is not elected by the people but rather by
the Electoral College, the Presidential election campaign fund is
4 The notice of deficiency, which is dated Oct. 28, 1998,
incorporates a so-called “30-day letter” dated Aug. 5, 1998. See
Rule 142(a); cf. sec. 7491.
5 The record does not include the basis for respondent’s
concession. The petition suggests that petitioners may have
received Social Security benefits in the amount of $11,598. If
this were the case, then respondent’s determination in the
deficiency notice that $1,682 of such amount was taxable would
appear to be consistent with the provisions of sec. 86.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011