Hendrickson's Heroes: Debra E. Gonzales

[Famspear]

Another of Hendrickson’s Heroes is Debra E. Gonzales, who is mentioned here:

http://www.losthorizons.com/EveryWhichW ... oseIII.htm

(about a third of the way down the page).

Hendrickson’s losthorizons web site falsely portrays her as a big winner.

On September 23, 2011, in Gonzales v. Commissioner, case no. 17092-10, the U.S. Tax Court denied Debra’s motion to amend her petition, and ruled in favor of the Internal Revenue Service on its motion for partial summary judgment. The IRS is going to be permitted to proceed with an administrative levy with respect to Debra’s 2003 income tax deficiency.

Debra admitted working for “AutumnCare Adult Day Care Center, Inc., in exchange for pay” and yet she argued that her year 2003 pay was not subject to income tax because of “definitions in IRC sections 1402 and 3121 providing specific treatment for ‘net earnings from self-employment’, ‘self-employment income’, ‘trade or business income’, and ‘wages’” and because of the term “’employment’ as defined in IRC Sec. 3121(b)”.

The Court pronounced her contentions as frivolous. The Court stated:

Income for purposes of section 61 (pertaining to income tax) is not limited to “wages”, or “self-employment income”, or “trade or business income”, or to income derived from “employment” under sections 1402 and 3121 (which pertain to employment taxes); so even if Ms. Gonzales’s arguments about the meanings of those terms were correct (they are not), they would not curtail the reach of section 61 nor affect the taxability of her pay as income. It is not expedient or necessary for us to address further these frivolous arguments.

--from Order, Sept. 23, 2011, Gonzales v. Commissioner, case no. 17092-10L (underlining and parenthetical commentary in the original) (Gustafson, J.).

In this order, the Court also warned Ms. Gonzales not to make any further frivolous arguments, citing section 6673, but did not impose any penalties at this time.

Debra has had at least one other case in Tax Court – case no. 21772-06. (I haven't looked at that case yet.)

[Famspear]

I see three Tax Court cases for Debra E. Gonzales:

case no. 021772-06
case no. 017092-10L
case no. 012563-11

...and one case for someone who has identified himself as her husband, Andrew D. Pittman:

case no. 012564-11.

In a hearing on March 17, 2008 in case number 021772-06, Mr. Pittman (who is not a lawyer and is not a member of the bar of the Tax Court) attempts to represent his wife. The following exchange takes place in open court:

MR. PITTMAN: [ . . . ] I made a motion to represent her. I'm the head of the family spiritually. I have prepared the documents. She knows nothing about it. I handle all those kind of things and she submits to me. Besides that, she is actually a little bit terrified, and she's on some medication for her nerves, so I would ask the Court's permission to represent her and speak for her.

THE COURT: Are you an attorney?

MR. PITTMAN: No, sir. I'm her husband.

THE COURT: Well, you're not authorized to represent her.

MR. PITTMAN: Well, can I speak for her, sir?

THE COURT: Well, I'll let you sit with her at counsel table.

--from pp. 2 and 3, transcript of March 17, 2008 hearing, U.S. Tax Court, Columbia, South Carolina, Gonzales v. Commissioner, case no. 021772-06.

Hmmm..... Behind every good Cracking the Code woman there just might be a man who's, uh, a tax denying idiot.

[Famspear]

In case number 021772-06, the Tax Court sustained the tax deficiency for year 2003 for Debra Gonzales, of $17,492.

The Court also upheld the following:

section 6651(a) penalties of $3,935.70 (presumably, under paragraph (1) of subsection (a));

section 6651(a)(2) penalties of $2,186.50;

section 6654(a) penalty of $451.32.

Total: $24,065.42, plus interest.

No other penalties, though.