Norman P. Schiff - Page 6




                                        - 5 -                                         
          income tax liabilities for 2002 and 2003.  Petitioner believes              
          that respondent should have used rates applicable to married                
          taxpayers filing joint returns.                                             
               To receive the benefit of joint return rates, taxpayers must           
          file a valid joint return pursuant to section 6013.  Sec.                   
          1(a)(1); see Thompson v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 558 (1982).  The             
          returns petitioner submitted for 2002 and 2003 were not valid               
          income tax returns.  (See discussion below.)  Petitioner did not            
          file any valid returns electing joint filing status before these            
          cases were submitted for decision.  Cf. Millsap v. Commissioner,            
          91 T.C. 926 (1988); Phillips v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 433, 441              
          (1986), affd. in part and revd. in part 851 F.2d 1492 (D.C. Cir.            
          1988).  Furthermore, petitioner does not make a claim that he was           
          not legally required to file U.S. income tax returns, which would           
          first have to be rejected for the need or opportunity to elect              
          joint filing status to arise.  Cf. Vazquez v. Commissioner, T.C.            
          Memo. 1993-368.  Petitioner has also failed to present any                  
          evidence regarding his eligibility for joint filing status.                 
          Thus, petitioner is not entitled to claim joint filing status,              
          and respondent correctly calculated petitioner’s tax liability              
          using married filing separately rates.  See sec. 1(d).                      
               Petitioner also claims that he is entitled to deductions for           
          his wife and children, which respondent did not allow in the                
          calculation of petitioner’s tax liabilities.  Since petitioner              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007