                        T.C. Memo. 1998-137



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



  DANIEL L. FA’ASAMALA AND YVETTE S. FA’ASAMALA, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 9220-97.              Filed April 9, 1998.



     Daniel L. Fa’Asamala and Yvette S. Fa’Asamala, pro sese.

     Fred E. Green, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

     GERBER, Judge:   Respondent determined that, for the taxable

year 1995, petitioners had a $10,603 income tax deficiency and a

$2,121 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).1   The

issues remaining for our consideration are whether petitioners’

     1
       Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the period under consideration. The sec. 6662(a)
accuracy-related penalty is no longer in dispute.
                               - 2 -

wages are income to them and whether they are entitled to a

deduction or credit for the “marriage penalty”.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT2

     Petitioners resided in Oceanside, California, at the time

their petition was filed.   Neither petitioner has specialized

knowledge of the law or taxation matters.    Both petitioners were

educated through the 12th grade.    Petitioners were married in

1990, and from that time forward began filing joint Federal

income tax returns.   They noticed that their marital status

resulted in the payment of more Federal income tax, collectively,

than they had experienced when they were single and filed

separately.   This paradoxical situation upset petitioners, and

they set out to understand the taxing statutes.    They attended

several lectures for which they had to pay fees, and they studied

the Internal Revenue Code and related materials.    Some of the

lecturers were former Internal Revenue Service employees, and

petitioners believed the other lecturers to be expert or

knowledgeable in the field of taxation.

     Petitioners reached the conclusion that they were entitled

to a rebate of the extra tax they paid due to being married and

that their wages are not taxable.    Petitioners’ 1995 joint

Federal income tax return was in all pertinent respects complete

in that it advised respondent of the information necessary to

     2
       The parties’ stipulation of facts and the information in
the attached exhibits are incorporated by this reference.
                                - 3 -

compute petitioners' tax liability.      All required information was

supplied, including the attachment of petitioners’ Forms W-2

reflecting the amount of wages and withholding tax, petitioners’

marital and filing status, and the names and ages of their

dependents.   Petitioners, however, placed zero in each place

provided for income items on the face of their Form 1040.     Their

resulting tax was also shown as zero, and they claimed a refund

of the $7,819.21 in combined withholdings and an additional

$20,000 shown as attributable to 1995 estimated tax payments.

     Petitioners did not have any estimated tax payments, so

respondent refunded most of the $7,819.21 to petitioners and

credited the remainder to a prior year's outstanding tax

liability.    Petitioners also attached to their return several

pages of material that they had prepared from the research and

lecture handouts, explaining why they were not liable for tax.

The $20,000 amount shown as estimated payment was explained by

petitioners as the amount they had computed representing the

extra tax they had paid since 1990 solely because they had become

married.

                               OPINION

     We found petitioners to be forthright and honest in their

testimony.    It is also obvious that they were cooperative and

responsive to respondent’s agent’s examination of their tax

return and inquiries.    Additionally, petitioners’ concern about

the “marriage penalty” is currently a matter which is being
                                - 4 -

considered by members of Congress.      Marriage Tax Elimination Act,

H.R. 2456, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. sec. 2 (1997); Marriage Penalty

Relief Act, H.R. 2593, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. sec. 2 (1997).

This does not change the fact that they are liable for the tax in

accord with the current requirements of the law.

     Petitioners’ legal arguments regarding whether their wages

are taxable income are principally founded on the reasoning that

the term or concept of “income” is not defined in the Internal

Revenue Code.   Petitioners’ arguments and reasoning ignore a

substantial amount of case law developed by Federal courts at all

levels that has interpreted the statutory wording provided by

Congress.   The volume of this case material is too extensive to

be referenced here.   In that regard, we are not obligated to

exhaustively review and/or rebut petitioners’ misguided

contentions.    Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir.

1984).   Petitioners’ disagreement with the law belongs in another

forum.

     Petitioners’ wages, as reported by them to respondent, and

$14 of interest income reported to respondent by a third party
                                 - 5 -

constitute income to them.   Accordingly, respondent's

determination of a $10,603 income tax deficiency for petitioners’

1995 taxable year is sustained.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         Decision will be entered for

                                 respondent as to the income tax

                                 deficiency.
