- 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