- 13 - that he received a Form 1099-INT for 1998 from Amerus Life Insurance Company reflecting the payment to him of $80.22 of interest for that year. Petitioner does not dispute the actual receipt of those amounts, which are properly includable in his gross income under section 61(a)(9) (annuities) and section 61(a)(4) (interest), respectively. Petitioner makes two arguments in opposition to the inclusion in income of the foregoing amounts: (1) the notices of deficiency, which are a prerequisite to this Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency under section 6214,8 are invalid (essentially because they were based upon substitute returns prepared without valid regulatory authority and were printed on the wrong IRS form), so that the Court lacks jurisdiction for both years, and (2) the compensation and retirement payments to petitioner constituted a return of petitioner’s human capital and, therefore, were not income. Petitioner’s arguments respecting the propriety of the substitute returns are meritless tax-protester arguments. More significantly, the Internal Revenue Code’s deficiency procedures (sections 6211-6213) “do not require the Commissioner to prepare a [substitute] return on a taxpayer’s behalf before determining and issuing a notice of deficiency.” Roat v. Commissioner, 847 8 See Hannan v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969) (“it is * * * the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency that provides a predicate for Tax Court jurisdiction”).Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007