T.C. Memo. 2001-274
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT MUELLER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 4743-00. Filed October 10, 2001.
Robert Mueller, pro se.
Jennifer L. Nudding, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a
deficiency of $8,712 in petitioner’s 1996 Federal income taxes.
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
- 2 -
After concessions by petitioner, the sole issue we must
decide is whether petitioner is entitled to a filing status other
than single with respect to his 1996 tax return because of his
long-term economic and personal relationship with Mr. Todd Bates.
Respondent determined that petitioner had unreported
Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, income of $48,234, that
his wage income was decreased by $48,235 (the one dollar
difference is unexplained), that his self-employment tax was
$6,815, and that his self-employment tax deduction was $3,408.
Respondent also determined that petitioner was entitled to a
$4,000 standard deduction for single filing status, thereby
increasing taxable income by $2,700 ($6,700 for married
individuals filing joint returns, minus $4,000), and allowed him
a dependency exemption with respect to Mr. Bates. Respondent
determined that the tax table, single, was applicable to
determine petitioner’s tax.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are
so found. Petitioner resided in Downers Grove, Illinois, at the
time he filed his petition.
Robert Mueller (petitioner) is homosexual. In 1989,
petitioner began a relationship with Mr. Bates.
Petitioner did not apply for nor receive a marriage license
or certificate from the State of Illinois from 1989 through 1996.
- 3 -
Petitioner did not register a marriage with the State of Illinois
during the years 1989 through 1996. Petitioner was not married
to anyone from 1989 through 1996.
Petitioner timely filed a Federal income tax return for 1996
bearing his name and the name of Mr. Bates. Mr. Bates also
signed the 1996 return on the line under petitioner’s signature
labeled “Spouse’s signature.” Petitioner struck out the word
“Spouse’s” on that line.
Petitioner listed his own name on the first line of the
label of the 1996 return. Petitioner listed the name “Todd W.
Bates” on the second line of the label of the 1996 return.
Petitioner struck out the word “spouse’s” twice in the label
block of the 1996 return.
On the 1996 return, petitioner marked filing status 2, line
2, and struck out the word “Married” on that line so that it read
“filing joint return” instead of “Married filing joint return”.
Petitioner claimed an exemption for a “Spouse” on line 6b of the
1996 return. On line 34 of the 1996 return, petitioner claimed a
standard deduction in the amount of $6,700 based upon his claimed
filing status of “filing joint return.” Petitioner utilized
married, filing jointly tax rates in determining his 1996 tax.
All the income reported on the 1996 return was earned by
petitioner. Petitioner performed services as a computer
consultant during 1996 for the University of Chicago Hospitals,
- 4 -
Phamis, Inc., and Northwest Community Hospital. Mr. Bates was
unemployed in 1996. The 1996 return does not reflect any income
earned by Mr. Bates.
OPINION
Petitioner is no stranger to this Court. Petitioner
received an adverse ruling on the very issue before us for his
earlier taxable years 1986 through 1995 in Mueller v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-132 (Mueller I), affd. without
published opinion 87 AFTR 2d 2001-2052, 2001-1 USTC par. 50,391,
(7th Cir. 2001).
The basic difference between Mueller I and this case is that
the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104-199, 110 Stat.
2419 (1996), was in effect during 1996, the year in issue and was
not in effect for the earlier years in Mueller I. DOMA sec. 2,
110 Stat. 2419, provides that no State, territory, U.S.
possession or Indian tribe is required to give effect to any
public act, record, or judicial proceeding of another such
organization with respect to a relationship between persons of
the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such
other organizations or a right or claim arising from such
relationship. DOMA sec. 3, 110 Stat. 2419, provides that in
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the U.S. administrative bureaus
and agencies, the word “marriage” means only a legal union
- 5 -
between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
“spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife. Petitioner does not claim he was married in
1996 under the laws of any State. In fact, he is admittedly
unmarried. Thus, DOMA effects no change in the law otherwise
applicable in this case.
Section 6013 provides that a “husband and wife” may make a
single return jointly of income taxes. Petitioner does not
purport to be a husband or a wife. Accordingly, petitioner does
not qualify under section 6013 as a person entitled to file a
joint return. He points to no other section of the Internal
Revenue Code which would allow him to file a joint return.
Petitioner like any unmarried person, whether heterosexual or
homosexual, falls into the category of “Unmarried Individuals
(Other Than Surviving Spouses and Heads of Household)” under
section 1(c). This is the status referred to as “Single” on the
Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.
During the trial, petitioner acknowledged that in Mueller I,
this Court considered virtually every single aspect of his case.
In light of petitioner’s admission about Mueller I, we refer
merely to a few aspects of that opinion.
In Mueller I, this Court held that the tax code’s
distinctions between married taxpayers and unmarried economic
partners were constitutionally valid. Similarly, the Court of
- 6 -
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to which an appeal of this case
would lie, has held that taxing married couples and singles
differently does not violate the Constitution. Barter v. United
States, 550 F.2d 1239, 1240 (7th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). In
affirming Mueller I, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reiterated the holding of Barter and stated that Mueller
(petitioner here) offered no reason why that analysis did not
control in the case before it. Mueller v. Commissioner, 87 AFTR
2d 2001-2052, 2001-1 USTC par. 50,391 (7th Cir. 2001), affg. T.C.
Memo. 2000-132. In Mueller I, the Tax Court referred to the
holding in Kellems v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 556 (1972), affd. 474
F.2d 1399 (2d Cir. 1973), that the classification between married
and single taxpayers is founded upon a rational basis and was a
permissible attempt to account for the greater financial burdens
of married taxpayers and to equalize geographically their tax
treatment. In Mueller I, the Tax Court also observed that
whether policy considerations warrant narrowing of the gap
between the tax treatment of married taxpayers and homosexual and
other nonmarried economic partners is for Congress to determine
in light of all relevant legislative considerations. We agree
with all of these statements which answer petitioner’s pertinent
contentions.
- 7 -
To the extent we have not addressed any of petitioner’s
contentions, we have considered them and find them to be without
merit.
For all the foregoing reasons, we sustain respondent’s
determination.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.