The opinion
T.C. Memo. 2000-142
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
BARRY PHILLIP FIEGEL, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 16119-98. Filed April 18, 2000.
Barry Phillip Fiegel, pro se.
William Castor, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DINAN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax in the amount of
$3,117 for the taxable year 1996. Unless otherwise indicated,
section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for
the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner was
required to report as income certain amounts he received in
taxable year 1996; (2) whether petitioner is liable for self-
employment tax on income received in 1996, and entitled to a
deduction therefor, as determined by respondent; and (3) whether
petitioner is eligible for the earned income credit for 1996.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.1
The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on the date the petition was filed in
this case.
Petitioner timely filed his Federal income tax return for
taxable year 1996. On his return, he reported $5,831 in wages
received from OTI, Inc. Petitioner received, but did not report
on his return, $1,605 from Nebraska Keno Operators, Inc., and
$8,886 from National Petition Management.
Respondent issued petitioner a statutory notice of
deficiency dated July 1, 1998. Respondent’s determination of
petitioner's tax liability in the notice of deficiency is
1
Both petitioner and counsel for respondent signed the
Stipulation of Facts with attached exhibits. Petitioner,
however, added a handwritten note stating that “I, Barry Fiegel,
say ‘no contest’ or ‘nolo contendre’ to this 3-page proposed
Stipulation of Facts. * * * I have no idea whether the enclosed
‘facts’ are true or are not true.” We will continue to treat the
statements made in the document as stipulated, however, because
petitioner admitted the veracity of the stipulation at trial.
- 3 -
presumed to be correct, and petitioner bears the burden of
proving it wrong. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111 (1933).
Petitioner disputes all the determinations made by
respondent in the notice of deficiency. Petitioner’s argument,
as stated in his amended petition to this Court, is based upon
his “disputation of the claim on the fact or theory that the
federal income system or scheme is a system or scheme of
‘voluntary compliance.’” This argument is clearly without merit:
Petitioner was legally required to file a Federal income tax
return for taxable year 1996, see sec. 6012(a)(1)(A), and was
legally required to report thereon all income he received during
the year, as required by respondent, see sec. 6011(a).
Respondent determined that the amounts of $1,605 and $8,886
received by petitioner in 1996 from Nebraska Keno Operators,
Inc., and National Petition Management, respectively, were
includable in his income. Petitioner did not produce evidence
refuting this determination. Thus, petitioner must include these
amounts in his income. See sec. 61(a).
Respondent also determined that these amounts were self-
employment income within the meaning of section 1402(b).
Petitioner again did not present evidence refuting this
determination. Thus, petitioner is liable for self-employment
tax for 1996 figured from self-employment income in the total
- 4 -
amount of $10,491. See sec. 1401. Accordingly, petitioner is
also entitled to a deduction in the amount of one-half of the
self-employment tax, as stated by respondent in the notice of
deficiency. See sec. 164(f)(1).
Finally, respondent made a computational adjustment
disallowing petitioner’s claimed earned income credit. The
record does not establish that petitioner had any qualifying
children, as defined under section 32(c)(3), during taxable year
1996. Because petitioner’s earned income was greater than $9,500
during that year, petitioner was not eligible to claim the
credit. See sec. 32(a)(2).
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.