Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the year 1962 in the amount of $140.62.
The sole issue for determination is whether the Federal income tax laws are constitutional as applied to petitioner.
Findings of Fact
Raymond H. Rau, petitioner, a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, filed his individual Federal income tax return for the year 1962 with the district director of internal revenue at St. Paul, Minnesota. The return was filed June 25, 1963.
Petitioner was not married during any part of the taxable year 1962.
On the return petitioner reported taxable income in the amount of $703.12. In the space provided on the return for the amount of tax petitioner wrote "None." Respondent determined that the correct tax liability for a single taxpayer with taxable income of $703.12 was $140.62 and determined a statutory deficiency in that amount.
Petitioner challenges the Federal income tax laws on the grounds that they discriminate against a single taxpayer. He also contends that the laws encourage behavior which the courts of the State of South Dakota have declared to be criminal.
In his pleadings, petitioner does not mention the clause or clauses of the Constitution on which he relies, and he has not alluded to any specific constitutional violations. Therefore, we must hold that petitioner has not properly raised a constitutional objection. Antoinette N. Faraco [Dec. 22,812], 29 T.C. 674 (1958), affd. [58-2 USTC ¶ 9947] 261 F.2d 387 (C. A. 4, 1958), certiorari denied, 359 U.S. 925 (1959); Frederick N. Dillon [Dec. 6287], 20 B. T. A. 690(1930).
Even were we to assume, arguendo, that the issue was properly presented, it would be our opinion that the claim is clearly unsubstantiated and without merit. Similar allegations have been held farfetched and frivolous. See Porth v. Brodrick [54-2 USTC ¶ 9552], 214 F.2d 925 (C. A. 10, 1954).
On brief petitioner has also contended that his case can be resolved only when all his grievances and complaints have been dealt with, to wit, that petitioner has not received his share of public benefits, and that he has been discriminated against by the New York Industrial Personnel Access Authorization Field Board, the courts of the State of South Dakota, South Dakota State College, and the Minnesota State Unemployment Security Department. Petitioner states that anything short of a resolution of all these issues will not be acceptable. We submit that the Tax Court is not the appropriate forum for airing such grievances. Complaints of this nature are clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
Decision will be entered for the respondent.