- 6 - timely petition with the Court disputing respondent’s determinations. Rule 13(a), (c);6 see Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see also Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir. 1984). D. Petitioner’s Position In his petition and at trial, petitioner contends that his military retirement pay is not subject to Federal income tax. In this regard, petitioner contends: The Internal Revenue Service has no jurisdiction to tax and discipline Simanonok because he is appointed to the United States Armed Forces and is governed and disciplined under Title 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, enacted into a [sic] positive law of the United States in 1956. Petitioner also contends that his Social Security benefits are not subject to Federal income tax. In this regard, petitioner contends that the notice of deficiency “constitutes legal process against Social Security benefits in violation of the Social Security Act.” Petitioner also contends that he is not required to file a Federal income tax return. In this regard, petitioner testified: I don’t even have to submit it [a tax return], but I know there can be terrible and dire consequences if I didn’t. An so –- so I proceeded –- they didn’t have jurisdiction, and essentially, it was a forced confession, and I was being nice and submitting one 6 All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011