Jump To • Introduction • Questions Presented For Review • List Of All Parties • Table Of Contents • Table Of Cited Authorities • Jurisdiction • Statement Of The Case • Reasons For Granting The Petition • Appendix A. Opinion of the United States Tax Court, filed July 14, 2000 • Appendix B. Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed April 8, 2001 • Appendix C. House of Representatives Congressional Record, July 12, 1996 • Appendix D. United States Senate Congressional Record, September 10, 1996 • Appendix E. Letter from University of Chicago Hospitals Human Resources Department, November 13, 2000

Appendix B

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 12, 2001* Decided April 6, 2001

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 00-3587

ROBERT D. MUELLER Appeal from the United States Tax Petitioner-Appellant, Court No. 15289-98 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL David Laro, REVENUE, Judge Respondent-Appellee

ORDER

Robert D. Mueller failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 1986-1995. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a deficiency notice to Mueller, requiring that he pay over $249,000 in tax and $69,000 in additions under 26U.S.C &&6651(a)(1) and 6654. Mueller petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of the unpaid tax, and after a brief trial the Tax Court entered judgment for the Commissioner and upheld the calculations in the notice. Mueller now appeals that judgment, and we affirm.

On appeal Mueller does not argue that the Commissioner's tax and penalty computations are incorrect under current statutes and regulations. He instead argues that he and his domestic partner are "economic partners", and like a married couple should be afforded equivalent filing status. We have previously held, however, that taxing married couples and singles differently does not violate the Constitution, see Barter v. United States, 550 F.2d 1239, 1240(7th Cir. 1977)(per curiam); see also Druker v. Comm'r, 697 F.2d 46, 51 (2d Cir. 1982), and Mueller offers no reason why that analysis does not control here. Instead he spends a large portion of his brief arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996), which defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," 1 U.S.C. &7, violates equal protection. The Tax Court correctly pointed out, however, that the Act was not in effect during the 10-year period for which Mueller was assessed deficiencies and, thus, is not at issue here. Furthermore, Mueller offered no evidence in the Tax Court to rebut the presumption of correctness enjoyed by a notice of deficiency. See Pittman v. Comm'r, 100 F.3d 1308, 1313 (7th Cir. 1996). His evidence consisted of newspaper articles and internet sites discussing the status of homosexuals in various countries, but it did not establish that the Commissioner erred in computing the deficiencies. Moveover, his testimony only reinforced the appropriateness of the deficiencies and additions because he admitted earning substantial income during the relevant tax years of 1986-1995 but filing no returns.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Tax Court.

* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Contribute to G/L Issues

to help with our expenses