- 6 -
OPINION
I. Petitioner’s Protester Arguments
Petitioner has asserted frivolous arguments to support his
contention that he did not have to pay Federal income taxes for
the 1999 tax year. To educate petitioner, we shall briefly
address his arguments.
A. Petitioner Received Income
Petitioner argues that he did not receive “income” in 1999.
This argument relies on petitioner’s assertion that the Internal
Revenue Code does not define the term “income”. This Court has
consistently rejected this argument.
Section 61(a) defines gross income to include “income from
whatever source derived”. More specifically, section 61(a)
includes in an individual’s gross income any compensation for
services, interest payments, dividend payments, and gains derived
from dealings in property. Clearly, petitioner’s compensation
from PFS, interest payments from banks where he maintained
accounts, and dividend payments from corporations in which he
held stock are gross income for Federal income tax purposes. See
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)
(stating that gross income includes all accessions to wealth that
are clearly realized and under the control of the taxpayer);
Grimes v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 235, 237 (1984); Reiff v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1169, 1173 (1981). Additionally,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011