David J. and Jo Dena Johnson - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                          
          Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324, 328-329 (2000).  Thus, we will                   
          dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.                                  
               2.  Whether we will decide if the hearing requirement under             
          section 6330(b) has been met.  We hold that we will not.  We will            
          no longer follow Meyer v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417 (2000), to              
          the extent that it holds to the contrary.                                    
               References to petitioner are to David J. Johnson.                       
                                      Background                                       
               Petitioners lived in Milton, Florida, when they filed the               
          petition in this case.                                                       
          A.   Petitioners’ Tax Returns                                                
               Petitioners filed returns for 1994, 1995, and 1996, in which            
          they reported their wages as income.  They later filed amended               
          returns for those years in which they did not report any income,             
          and contended that wages and salary reported as income on their              
          original returns are not taxable.  In attachments to each of                 
          those amended returns, petitioners stated:                                   
               1. No section in the Internal Revenue Code makes                        
                    petitioners liable for the income taxes at issue.                  
               2.   Income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.                
               3.   The Supreme Court defines income as corporate profit.              
               4.   Wages are not corporate profit; thus, petitioners have             
                    no income.                                                         
               5.   Section 61 is invalid because it defines “gross income”            
                    by using the word “income”.                                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011