- 9 -
While petitioner makes several arguments on policy and
sociological grounds, in the face of the cases cited above to the
contrary, they have no legal bearing on the issues in this case.
Whether policy considerations warrant narrowing of the gap
between the tax treatment of married taxpayers and homosexual and
other nonmarried economic partners is for Congress to determine
in light of all the relevant legislative considerations. See
Druker v. Commissioner, 697 F.2d at 51.
Accordingly, we sustain the deficiencies determined by
respondent.6
2. Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)
Respondent determined additions to tax under section 6651(a)
for petitioner’s failure to file his 1986 through 1995 Federal
income tax returns. In order to avoid this addition to tax,
petitioner must prove that his failure to file was: (1) Due to
reasonable cause and (2) not due to willful neglect. See sec.
6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245
6We also note that petitioner, as a nonfiler, would not be
entitled to the relief he now seeks even if he had been married
at the relevant times. Married taxpayers who fail to file
returns are not entitled to application of the married filing
jointly tax rates. See Martinez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-199, affd. without published opinion (5th Cir. 1998);
Collins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-409; Ebert v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-629, affd. without published
opinion 986 F.2d 1427 (10th Cir. 1993); Hess v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1989-167; see also Phillips v. Commissioner, 86 T.C.
433, 441 n.7 (1986), affd. in part and revd. in part 851 F.2d
1492 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011