- 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 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007