Wilson D. Watson - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
          are, therefore, adequate to sustain the Court’s jurisdiction                
          herein.                                                                     
               Petitioner’s argument that his compensation and retirement             
          payments constituted a nontaxable return of human capital is                
          directly refuted by the requirement, under section 61, to include           
          those amounts in gross income and by numerous cases affirming the           
          intent of that section to reach any and all income from whatever            
          source derived unless specifically exempted.  See, e.g.,                    
          Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-430 (1955).           
               We sustain all of respondent’s nonconceded inclusions in               
          petitioner’s income for 1998 and 1999.9                                     



               9  On the Forms 1040 petitioner submitted to the IRS for all           
          of the years at issue, petitioner claimed a filing status of                
          “single”.  For 1998 and 1999, however, respondent assumed                   
          petitioner’s filing status to be “married filing separately”, and           
          in determining deficiencies for those years, he allowed the                 
          standard deduction applicable to taxpayers with that filing                 
          status.  On brief, petitioner does not dispute respondent’s                 
          “married filing separately” classification for him for 1998 and             
          1999.  Nor does he allege that he reached age 65 during any of              
          the years in issue.  Therefore, in computing, under Rule 155, the           
          deficiencies and penalties imposed herein, respondent may                   
          attribute to petitioner a 1998 and 1999 filing status of “married           
          filing separately”.  Also, respondent may assume, for all years             
          at issue, that petitioner did not attain age 65 and, therefore,             
          was not entitled to an additional standard deduction under sec.             
          63(f)(1)(A).  Thus, for 1998 and 1999, petitioner is entitled to            
          the basic standard deduction provided, under secs. 63(c)(2)(D)              
          and 62(c)(4), to “married filing separately” taxpayers, and, for            
          2001 and 2002, to the basic standard deduction provided, under              
          secs. 63(c)(2)(C) and 62(c)(4), to “single” taxpayers.                      
          Petitioner’s filing status is also potentially relevant in                  
          determining whether he is required to file returns for the years            
          at issue.  See infra discussion.                                            






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007