Richardson v. Commissioner, 72 T. C. 818 (1979)

A taxpayer lacks standing to challenge the government’s fiscal accounting practices under the Statement and Account clause, and an unsigned tax return does not start the statute of limitations.

Summary

In Richardson v. Commissioner, the U. S. Tax Court addressed the standing of a taxpayer to challenge the government’s fiscal practices under the Constitution’s Statement and Account clause, and the validity of an unsigned tax return for statute of limitations purposes. William B. Richardson refused to file tax returns or pay taxes, arguing that the Treasury Department’s reporting violated the Constitution. The court held that Richardson lacked standing because the clause limits the Executive Branch, not Congress’s taxing power. Additionally, the court ruled that Richardson’s unsigned 1971 tax return did not constitute a valid filing, thus not triggering the statute of limitations. The court also determined Richardson’s tax liability and upheld the addition to tax for failure to file.

Facts

William B. Richardson, employed as a public defender, did not file federal income tax returns or pay taxes for the years 1971-1974, asserting that the Treasury Department’s reporting of expenditures, particularly those of the intelligence community, violated the Constitution’s Statement and Account clause. In 1972, he mailed an unsigned 1971 tax return to the IRS, accompanied by a letter demanding the return of withheld taxes. The IRS assessed deficiencies and additions to tax for the years in question, which Richardson contested in court.

Procedural History

Richardson filed a petition with the U. S. Tax Court challenging the IRS’s determinations. The court addressed the issues of Richardson’s standing to challenge the government’s fiscal practices, the validity of his unsigned 1971 return, and the calculation of his tax liabilities and penalties.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Richardson has standing to challenge the government’s fiscal practices under the Statement and Account clause of the Constitution.
2. Whether the unsigned tax return filed by Richardson for 1971 constitutes a valid return for statute of limitations purposes.
3. Whether Richardson’s tax liabilities for 1971-1974 were correctly calculated by the IRS.
4. Whether the addition to tax for failure to file was properly imposed under section 6651(a).

Holding

1. No, because the Statement and Account clause limits the Executive Branch, not Congress’s taxing power.
2. No, because an unsigned return does not start the statute of limitations under section 6501(a).
3. Yes, with adjustments for rental income and dependency exemptions based on the evidence presented.
4. Yes, because Richardson’s failure to file was not due to reasonable cause.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the standing test from Flast v. Cohen, concluding that Richardson failed to establish a nexus between his taxpayer status and the alleged constitutional violation. The Statement and Account clause limits the Executive Branch, not Congress’s taxing and spending power, thus Richardson lacked standing. The court cited precedent to rule that an unsigned return does not constitute a valid filing for statute of limitations purposes. In calculating Richardson’s tax liabilities, the court considered his credible testimony regarding rental income and dependency exemptions. The court upheld the addition to tax under section 6651(a), finding that Richardson’s belief about unconstitutional Treasury practices did not constitute reasonable cause for failing to file. The court emphasized that the Constitution does not allow individual citizens to enforce general directives against the government.

Practical Implications

This decision clarifies that taxpayers cannot use the Statement and Account clause to challenge tax obligations based on alleged government fiscal misconduct. Attorneys should advise clients that unsigned tax returns do not start the statute of limitations, emphasizing the importance of proper filing. The case reinforces the IRS’s authority to assess taxes without time limitations when no valid return is filed. Practitioners should ensure clients understand the consequences of not filing, including potential penalties. This ruling may deter similar constitutional challenges in tax cases, impacting how taxpayers and their counsel approach disputes with the IRS.