IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Paul F. Basile, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED: February 17, 2011 : : : : : : :
No. 258 F.R. 2006 No. 259 F.R. 2006 No. 260 F.R. 2006 Submitted: January 7, 2011
Paul F. Basile (Taxpayer) has filed exceptions to this Court’s Order dated September 20, 2010, which affirmed the orders of the Board of Finance and Revenue (Board) concerning Taxpayer’s Pennsylvania Personal Income Tax for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Taxpayer asserts that this Court erroneously ruled against Taxpayer based on “feelings” and things “not making sense” resulting in bias in favor of the Board, instead of giving proper weight to Taxpayer’s evidence. Taxpayer argues that the income tax returns he filed were correct because not all income he earned was taxable income. Taxpayer argues that only government employees are subject to the Pennsylvania Personal Income Tax. In Roytburd v. Commonwealth, 958 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), affirmed per curiam, 601 Pa. 103, 971 A.2d 1125 (2009), this Court determined that whether a taxpayer is an employee of the federal government has no bearing on whether the taxpayer is subject to the Pennsylvania
Personal Income tax as set forth in Section 302(a) of the Tax Reform Code of 1971, 72 P.S. §7302(a).1
Taxpayer also argues that this Court erred when it ruled in favor of the Department of Revenue even though the Department of Revenue failed to produce any witnesses. This Court has previously determined that this argument is
immaterial. Basile v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 258 F.R. 2006, No. 259 F.R. 2006, No. 260 F.R. 2006, (filed September 20, 2010). This Court neither misapplied nor misconstrued the law.
Taxpayer argues that the Department of Revenue’s records revealed that it approved Taxpayer’s corporate return for the chiropractic office for 2002 which means that his 2002 personal return was valid as filed. The Department of Revenue asserts that this return was not in evidence when this Court made its de novo review and may not be considered now. This Court agrees. Taxpayer also argues that it was improper to use IRS Form 4549 as a basis for determining Taxpayer’s taxable income. This Court ably and thoroughly disposed of this
argument in Basile v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 258 F.R. 2006, No. 259 F.R. 2006, No. 260 F.R. 2006, (filed September 20, 2010). Again, this Court neither misapplied nor misconstrued the law.
Taxpayer also argues that the Board could not order the imposition of direct unapportioned taxes upon the use of his personal property. Once again, this Court has already rejected this argument. Roytburd.
1
Act of March 4, 1971, P.L. 6, as amended.
2
Taxpayer raises other arguments which are variations of the central argument that because he is not a government employee he does not have to pay Pennsylvania Personal Income Tax. This Court has rejected this argument.
Accordingly, this Court overrules the exceptions.
3
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Paul F. Basile, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 17th day of February, 2011, the Exceptions filed by Paul F. Basile in the above-captioned matters are overruled. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue. : : : : : : :
No. 258 F.R. 2006 No. 259 F.R. 2006 No. 260 F.R. 2006
ORDER
