*301 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
BEGHE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:
| Additions to Tax | |||||
| Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | ||
| Year | Deficiency | 6651(a)(1) | 16653(a)(1)(A) | 6653(a)(1)(B) | 6654 |
| 1984 | $ 5,093 | $ 1,265 | $ 255 | n2 | $ 317 |
| 1985 | 5,277 | 1,319 | 264 | n2 | 301 |
| 1986 | 6,971 | 1,743 | 349 | n2 | 337 |
| 1987 | 8,629 | 1,582 | 431 | n2 | 409 |
The issues for decision are:
(1) Whether petitioner was required to pay Federal income taxes and file returns for the taxable years before us;
(2) if so, whether petitioner is entitled to charitable*302 contribution deductions for those years under
(3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file returns, failure to pay estimated taxes, and for negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that petitioner was required to pay Federal income taxes and was required to file returns for the years at issue. We hold further that he was not entitled to charitable contribution deductions for the years at issue, and is liable for the additions to tax determined by respondent. Although respondent has not asked us to impose a penalty under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Such facts as are in evidence have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts, *303 together with the attached exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time he filed his petition, petitioner was a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Petitioner intentionally failed to file Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987.
Petitioner received gross income during those years in the following amounts:
| Year | Gross Income |
| 1984 | $ 24,035 |
| 1985 | 24,156 |
| 1986 | 30,041 |
| 1987 | 38,325 |
Petitioner paid itemized deduction expenses during the years at issue in the following amounts:
| Itemized | |
| Year | Deduction Expenses |
| 1984 | $ 7,069.50 |
| 1985 | 6,449.55 |
| 1986 | 7,043.23 |
| 1987 | 6,037.90 |
Petitioner's total withholding and estimated tax payments for the years at issue were as follows:
| 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | |
| Withholding | 1 $ 32 | -0- | -0- | n2 $ 2,301 |
| Estimated Tax | ||||
| Payments | -0- | -0- | -0- | -0- |
*304 Petitioner made no other tax payments for these years.
The parties have stipulated that petitioner is entitled to dependency exemptions for his wife and two children for the taxable years in question, and that petitioner is not liable for the self-employment taxes for the taxable years 1984, 1985, and 1986 that were included in respondent's deficiency determinations for those years.
The instructions for preparing Form 1040 (U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) for the years at issue did not bear an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number in the upper right-hand corner. Each of the Forms 1040, its schedules, Form W-2, and Forms 1099, for all relevant years, bore OMB control numbers in the upper right-hand corner.
OPINION
Petitioner is a practicing Roman Catholic who calls himself a religious objector to the Federal income tax. Petitioner argues, on the basis of the
*305 Although petitioner tries to characterize himself as not being a tax protester, we see no substantial difference between his arguments and the arguments of other tax protesters, who for one reason or another, have asserted that they are not required to comply with the internal revenue laws of the United States. Such arguments always fail. This Court and the other Federal courts have rejected them many times. See, e.g.,
A. Petitioner's Tax Liability
1.
Petitioner argues that requiring him to pay Federal income taxes violates his
*306 Petitioner contends that requiring him to pay Federal income taxes would force him to support financially activities that are contrary to his religious beliefs. According to petitioner, such a requirement is an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of his religion. We disagree.
We have heard similar arguments many times, most notably objections to the use of Federal tax dollars to wage war and conduct other military operations. See, e.g.,
nothing in the Constitution prohibits the*307 Congress from levying a tax upon all persons, regardless of religion, for support of the general government. The fact that some persons may object, on religious grounds, to some of the things that the government does is not a basis upon which they can claim a constitutional right not to pay a part of the tax. [
A statute does not violate the
The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief. See, e.g.,
We hold that requiring petitioner to pay Federal income taxes is not an unconstitutional restriction on his right to the free exercise of religion.
2. Other arguments
Other more typical tax protester arguments advanced by petitioner are that his wages are not income, that the income tax is an excise tax, that he is not a taxpayer, and that respondent has not complied with various administrative requirements imposed by statute.
There is absolutely no legal support for the proposition that petitioner's wages are not properly includable in his gross income or that he is not subject to taxes thereon. Petitioner's wages are includable in his gross income and subject to the Federal income tax. Sec. 61(a)(1);
Petitioner's assertion that the income tax is an excise tax is simply wrong. The income tax is a tax on income, not on property.
Petitioner's assertion that he is not a "taxpayer", and hence not subject to the internal revenue laws of the United States is also wrong. See sec. 7701(a)(14) (defining taxpayer). Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of "every individual". Petitioner is an individual and had taxable income in excess of the statutory minimum for each of the years in question. See sec. 6012(a)(1)(A) (persons with income under certain minimum amounts are not required to file returns). Petitioner is therefore a person subject to an internal revenue tax and is a taxpayer within the meaning of section 7701(a)(14).
Petitioner argues that he is not subject to Federal income tax because the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have not published in the Federal Register their organizational structure, tax forms and instructions, or delegation orders. Petitioner also argues that the instructions for preparing income tax returns did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. These arguments have no merit.
In accordance with
The FOIA also requires that each Federal agency publish in the Federal Register either "descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained".
We conclude that respondent fully complied with the FOIA's requirement that the public be informed of where tax forms and instructions may be obtained. Notice was duly given in the Federal Register, and petitioner is deemed to have received such notice.
Petitioner also argues that the Secretary of the Treasury improperly failed to publish his delegation orders in the Federal Register. However, such orders are merely rules of internal agency procedure that have no adverse effect on members of the public and need not be published in the Federal Register.
*314 Petitioner's final argument in this vein is that he is not liable for any additions to tax because respondent failed to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812,
Petitioner argues that the Form 1040 instruction booklet is an "information collection request" within the meaning of
The IRS instruction booklets are simply publications designed to help taxpayers more easily complete the information collection requests, i.e., their Federal income tax returns. We agree with respondent that the instructions for preparing Form 1040 are not "information collection requests" and are not subject to the OMB control number requirement of the PRA. Therefore,
On the basis of the foregoing, we hold, as matters of law, that petitioner does not avoid the liabilities for Federal income taxes or additions to tax that were determined by respondent.
B. Charitable Contribution Deduction
The parties have agreed that if we find that petitioner is liable for Federal income taxes, the amount of the deficiencies will be calculated by taking the parties' stipulations into account. Inasmuch as petitioner is liable for Federal income taxes, we hold that petitioner must include all the gross income stipulated. He is also entitled*316 to all the stipulated deductions and exemptions. The parties should deal with these adjustments in the Rule 155 computation.
In his petition, petitioner also asserted that he is entitled to additional itemized deductions under
Petitioner tried to persuade the Court through argument that he was entitled to charitable contribution deductions, but he presented no substantiating evidence. Petitioner did not proffer any records of such contributions as required by
We pointed out to petitioner in open court that the vast majority of his coreligionists do not agree *317 that these scripture passages prohibit them from testifying in court proceedings. 8 We further instructed petitioner that a conscientious refusal to "swear or affirm" does not prevent a witness from testifying. See
*318 The Court allowed petitioner every opportunity to present his case and provide evidence of his alleged charitable contributions, yet he rejected our offer. In view of the complete lack of evidence in the record of any charitable contributions, petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof, and we allow no deductions under
C. Additions to Tax
1.
Petitioner was required to file income tax returns for all the years at issue and failed to do so. We have rejected all of petitioner's reasons for not filing returns and paying tax.
Petitioner asserts, in part, that his failure to file income tax returns was due to his good faith belief that doing so would be in conflict with his religious convictions, and that therefore*319 his failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. As authority for this proposition, petitioner cites
Petitioner's argument is misplaced. The term "willful neglect", as used in
2.
Negligence has been defined as a "lack of due care or failure to do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under the circumstances."
We conclude, on the basis of petitioner's objectively unreasonable justifications for refusing to file returns and pay tax for the years at issue, that he did not make a reasonable attempt to comply with the requirements of the Code and thus acted negligently or with intentional disregard of rules and regulations. We therefore sustain respondent's determinations of additions to tax under
3.
D. Sanctions
(1) PROCEDURES INSTITUTED PRIMARILY FOR DELAY, ETC. -- Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that --
(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or
(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies,
the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000.
*323 Although respondent has not sought a penalty under
Finally, petitioner stated in his brief that "if the need arises I will flesh out this argument as I appeal my case to higher courts." We take this occasion to inform petitioner, as we have informed other tax protesters, see
On the basis of petitioner's gross income, deductions, and exemptions for the years at issue as stipulated, a recomputation of the tax liabilities and various additions to tax is required.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Footnotes
1. Prior to 1986 these provisions were
sec. 6653(a)(1) and(2) . This was noted in the notice of deficiency for 1984 and 1985.null.
The
First Amendment to the Constitution provides, in relevant part, that:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof * * *. [Emphasis added.]
2↩ 50 percent of the interest due computed on the portion of the underpayment attributable to negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations.1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
1. Petitioner paid $ 8 in withheld tax by the end of each quarter of 1984.
Petitioner paid $ 576, $ 575, $ 575, and $ 575 in withheld tax by the end of each respective quarter of 1987.↩
3. No evidence was submitted as to whether any of the activities cited by petitioner are or are not funded by the United States, whether the Roman Catholic Church condemns any of these activities, or whether the Church has exercised its teaching authority so as to validate or even encourage any of petitioner's arguments. To the extent these matters are based on matters of theology, they are "beyond our special competence or jurisdiction,"
Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71">661 F.2d 71 , 72 n.1 (5th Cir. 1981), affg.T.C. Memo. 1981-122 , but we believe it appropriate, as the Fifth Circuit said inDavis v. United States, 742 F.2d 171">742 F.2d 171 , 172 (5th Cir. 1984), and this Court has done on other occasions,Soloniuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-339 ,Devine v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-76 , to remind petitioner of the scripture passage: "* * * repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." Matthew 22:21; Luke↩ 20:25 (New American Bible).4. In 1967, the Freedom of Information Act replaced
5 U.S.C. sec. 552↩ , as enacted by Act of June 11, 1946, ch. 324, sec. 3, 60 Stat. 238, with a new provision under the same U.S. Code section designation. Act of June 5, 1967, Pub. L. 90-23, 81 Stat. 54.5.
44 U.S.C. sec. 1510 (1988) ;1 C.F.R. secs. 5.5 ,8.1 (1991)↩ .6. Act of July 26, 1935, ch. 417, sec. 5, 49 Stat. 500, as amended by Act of Oct. 22, 1968, Pub. L. 90-620, 82 Stat. 1274, and currently codified at
44 U.S.C. secs. 1501 et seq. (1988)↩ .7. See also
Billman v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 534">83 T.C. 534 , 538-540 (1984), affd.847 F.2d 887">847 F.2d 887↩ (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Form 1040 Privacy Act notice not required to be published in the Federal Register).8. The Catholic Almanac 330 (1992) states that swearing is "a legitimate thing to do for serious reasons and under proper circumstances, as in a court of law".↩
9.
Sec. 6673(a)(1)↩ was amended by sec. 7731(a) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2106, 2400 and applies to positions taken after December 31, 1989, in proceedings pending on or commenced after such date.