T.C. Memo. 2001-188
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DONALD W. WOLGAMOTT, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 3320-00. Filed July 24, 2001.
Donald W. Wolgamott, pro se.
Julie L. Payne, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $2,982 for
1997.1
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found,
1
Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references
are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
- 2 -
except as noted below. Petitioner resided in Seattle,
Washington, on the date the petition was filed in this case.
During 1997, petitioner received $10,186 from the State of
Washington as deferred compensation. Petitioner failed to report
any of this amount on his 1997 Federal income tax return. In
1997, petitioner also received $3,072 from the State of
Washington Employment Security Department as unemployment
compensation. Petitioner reported only $2,608 of unemployment
compensation on his 1997 Federal income tax return.2 On his tax
return, petitioner also understated the amount of wages withheld
by $305.
Respondent’s adjustments increase petitioner’s wage income
by $10,186, and his unemployment compensation by $464, and
increase the amount of tax withholding by $305. The deficiency
notice determines an increase in tax of $2,982 and states that
because of the increase to withholding petitioner owes additional
tax of $2,677 for 1997.
Petitioner argues that because of “major computer problems”
2
The parties stipulated that during 1997, petitioner
received unemployment compensation of $3,072, and that none of it
was reported on his Federal income tax return for 1997.
Actually, petitioner reported $2,608 of unemployment compensation
for 1997, and respondent seeks an adjustment to the amount of
unemployment compensation of only $464 (the difference between
$2,608 and $3,072). Since the stipulation is clearly contrary to
facts disclosed in the record to the extent of this mechanical
error, we are not bound by the stipulation. Jasionowski v.
Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312, 318 (1976).
- 3 -
and the “possibility of a meltdown of software” at the Internal
Revenue Service, he should not be required to pay taxes on the
adjustments of income.
Section 61 provides that all income, from whatever source
derived, is includable in gross income unless specifically
excluded by another provision. Compensation for services is
specifically included in the definition of gross income. Sec.
61(a)(1). Unemployment compensation is includable in gross
income. Sec. 85(a). Petitioner has not stated any disagreement
with these basic rules established by statute. He has stipulated
the amounts omitted from his tax return. His only argument with
respect to his taxes for 1997 is that respondent’s computers
sometimes make mistakes, so his return, as filed, is entitled to
more credibility than the corrections set forth in respondent’s
deficiency notice. Since petitioner does not dispute the
accuracy of the corrections made in this case, his generalized
objections to the accuracy of respondent’s computers as to other
matters, whether true or not, are irrelevant to this case and
without merit as objections to respondent’s determinations.
In his oral argument, petitioner mentioned objections to the
computation of amounts he owes to the Internal Revenue Service
with respect to taxes for earlier years. Such matters are not
relevant to our decision as to the amount at issue in these
deficiency proceedings concerning petitioner’s tax for 1997 and
- 4 -
in any other respect are not before this Court in these
proceedings.
Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the
deficiency determined by respondent.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.