Michael Alan Jackson and Mary Joy Jackson, et al. - Page 6
- 6 -
34(b)(5), provide no statements of the facts upon which they base
assignments of error. At trial, petitioners raised frivolous
arguments characteristic of tax protesters.4 They argued that
their wages should not be taxable because they have so little
left after they pay their expenses (other than their taxes,
apparently). Petitioners’ arguments merit no further discussion.
See Heisey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-41, affd. 59 Fed.
Appx. 233 (9th Cir. 2003). We sustain respondent’s
determinations in the notices of deficiency as to the amounts of
petitioners’ unreported taxable incomes for the years at issue.
In their petitions and at trial, petitioners alleged vaguely
and without reference to supporting facts that they are entitled
to various deductions. Deductions are a matter of legislative
grace; petitioners bear the burden of proving entitlement to
them. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).
Respondent has stipulated that in 2003 Mr. Jackson paid $11,413
of mortgage interest and Ms. Jackson paid $6,137 of mortgage
4 For instance, Mr. Jackson contended that he was entitled
to “full and complete relief from this proceeding” because of
“invalid OMB number on the 1040 form”. Petitioners did not raise
this argument in their petitions. In any event, the argument is
without merit. See, e.g., United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189,
1191 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356,
1359 (9th Cir. 1991); Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 208
n.12 (2006). In addition, at trial Mr. Jackson sought to rely
upon a letter which he had previously sent to the Court,
demanding that the Court “Verify authenticity of your authority”.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 10, 2007