- 4 -
determined that petitioner's proper filing status for income tax
purposes for each year before the Court was single. Accordingly,
respondent calculated the deficiencies and additions to tax using
the tax rates applicable to unmarried individuals pursuant to
section 1(c).
OPINION
Petitioner does not challenge the facts on which
respondent’s determinations are based.1 Petitioner’s sole claim
in this case is that he should be accorded married, rather than
single, filing status on his tax returns for the years 1989 to
1995. Petitioner does not claim to have ever been married.
Rather, petitioner argues that he had an "economic partnership"
with his roommate and that he was unconstitutionally denied the
opportunity to file a joint tax return with him in recognition of
such partnership. Petitioner references a number of
constitutional provisions, but we understand the crux of
petitioner’s constitutional claim to be that the tax code’s
unequal or differential treatment between married taxpayers and
unmarried persons in an economic partnership constitutes a
violation of the due process notions implicit in the Fifth
1At trial petitioner alleged for the first time that he had
suffered several theft losses during the years at issue.
However, petitioner failed to substantiate any such losses and
abandoned the argument on brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011