RICHARD W. LIVELY AND VERONICA LIVELY, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the taxpayers' arguments against the constitutionality of the income tax and their claimed deductions were without merit.
Taxpayers reported low income on their tax return, claiming personal expenses as business deductions. The Commissioner assessed a deficiency and penal…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tax Deficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1018] PER CURIAM.
Richard W. Lively and Veronica Lively filed a Form 1040 for the taxable year 1977 reflecting income of only $7,918. This amount was entered on the line for “business income” rather than on the line for “wages, salaries, tips, and other employee compensation.” With the Form 1040, the Livelys filed Wage and Tax Statements showing that Richard had received $30,-659.65 in wages during 1977. They also filed a Schedule C,1 which, after listing “receipts” of $31,360 and “subtractions” for personal expenses of $23,442, identified “net profit” of $7,918. The Commissioner sent the taxpayers a statutory notice determining a deficiency of $6,173 and a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6653(a) of $308.65. The taxpayers filed a petition with the Tax Court, and that Court2 granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. T.C. Memo. 1982-590. The taxpayers appeal. We affirm.
The taxpayers contend that the Tax Court erred in upholding the Commissioner’s disallowance of their deductions, because they did not claim any deductions. While it is true that the taxpayers did not enter any amount for claimed deductions on the Form 1040, the “business income” reported on that form was calculated according to the Schedule C filed by the taxpayers, and it clearly included impermissible deductions for personal expenses. Moreover, in their petition, the taxpayers alleged that they “are entitled to deduct from gross income $23,442.00 or such greater or lesser amount as the Court may allow.” Document 2 of the Record on Appeal, paragraph 5(e). The Tax Court did not err in this respect.
The taxpayers argue further that the income tax is unconstitutional because it is a direct tax which is not apportioned, that there is no law imposing an income tax on them for 1977, that 26 U.S.C. §§ 3101, 3102, and 3402 are unconstitutional, that income cannot be defined or measured, and that an individual’s “gross receipts” cannot be taxed. These arguments are wholly without merit.
This appeal is frivolous. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we impose on the appellants double the costs of the Commissioner. . The Schedule C (entitled Profit or (Loss) from Business or Profession (Sole Proprietorship)) reported Richard Lively’s name, address, social security number, and an amount claimed as “net profit.” The taxpayers attached their calculations on a separate, typewritten form.
. The Hon. William M. Fay, Judge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Granzow v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 739 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1984)
-
Martin v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 756 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1985)
-
Charczuk v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence