2020 UT App 46

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

TERRE LYNN CHRISTIANSEN,

Petitioner,

v.

TAX COMMISSION, SCOTT W. SMITH,

AND JOHN L. VALENTINE, ET AL,

Respondents.

Per Curiam Opinion

No. 20190570-CA

Filed March 26, 2020

Original Proceeding in this Court

Terre Lynn Christiansen, Petitioner Pro Se

Sean D. Reyes and Brent A. Burnett, Attorneys

for Respondents

Before JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, DAVID N.

MORTENSEN, and RYAN M. HARRIS.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Terre Lynn Christiansen petitions for review of the Tax 

Commission’s final order assessing tax deficiencies and penalties 

for the years 2012 through 2016. Christiansen did not file state 

tax returns in those years. 

¶2 In 2017, the Auditing Division sent Christiansen requests 

for filing information for years 2012 to 2016, noting that Division 

records showed that she had not filed state tax returns in those 

years. The requests informed Christiansen that she could still file 

the returns, and in addition identified for Christiansen the 

information she should provide to the Division to enable it to 

evaluate her filing status in the event Christiansen took the 

position that she was not required to file tax returns. 

Christiansen did not provide the information identified in the 
Christiansen v. Tax Commission

20190570-CA 2 2020 UT App 46

requests. However, in response to each request, Christiansen 

sent a letter to the Division requesting that the Division provide 

proof that Christiansen was required to file a federal tax return, 

which is a prerequisite to the requirement to file a state 

tax return. See Utah Code § 59-10-502(1) (LexisNexis 2018)

(providing that a state tax return must be filed by every 

resident individual who is required to file a federal income tax 

return). 

¶3 In the absence of the necessary information from 

Christiansen, the Division sent out notices of deficiency and 

estimated income tax for the years in question. Each notice 

included an estimated federal adjusted gross income and 

showed that the income was greater than the sum of the

standard deduction and personal exemption, which triggers tax 

liability. See id. § 59-10-104.1(2) (providing that an individual is 

exempt from state income tax if the individual’s federal adjusted 

gross income is less than or equal to the sum of the personal 

exemptions and standard deduction). 

¶4 Christiansen responded to the notices of deficiency with 

additional demands for proof that she was required to file a 

federal tax return. She stated that she had requested such proof 

from the Internal Revenue Service in 2015 and had never 

received any evidence that she was required to file a federal 

return. The Division construed these letters as a petition for 

redetermination of the deficiencies and set the matter for 

hearing. Ultimately, after a formal hearing, the Commission 

upheld the deficiency and penalty assessments. After the denial 

of her petition for reconsideration, Christiansen seeks review in 

this court.

¶5 On review, Christiansen continues to demand evidence 

from the Commission showing that she was required to file 

a federal tax return. However, in proceedings before the 

Commission seeking a redetermination of a deficiency, with 
Christiansen v. Tax Commission

20190570-CA 3 2020 UT App 46

some exceptions not applicable here, “the burden of proof is 

on the petitioner.” Utah Code § 59-1-1417(1). Accordingly, it 

is Christiansen who bears the burden to show that the 

Commission’s assessments are in error. See also Jensen v. State 

Tax Comm’n, 835 P.2d 965, 971 (Utah 1992) (“When a 

recalcitrant or evading taxpayer refuses to file an income tax 

return and the Commission is therefore compelled to reconstruct 

financial data from available evidence to estimate the 

taxpayer’s income, it is reasonable to shift the burden to the 

taxpayer . . . to show that the Commission’s figures are 

incorrect.”).

¶6 Furthermore, the Commission provided evidence in the 

notices of deficiency when it showed that Christiansen received 

income greater than the filing requirement minimum for 

federal tax returns. See 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)(1) (providing that a 

federal tax return is required by “every individual having for 

the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds 

the exemption amount”). Although she argues that she is 

exempt for other reasons, the Commission demonstrated as 

an initial matter that Christiansen was required to file a 

federal tax return and, therefore, was required to file a state tax 

return. 

¶7 Christiansen argues that she is exempt from filing a 

federal tax return because she is a member of a church, and “the 

Church is exempt from federal taxation.” Under the federal tax 

code, certain organizations are exempt from taxation. 26 U.S.C. 

§ 501(a). “Corporations . . . organized and operated exclusively 

for religious . . . purposes, . . . no part of the net earnings of 

which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or 

individual,” are exempt from taxation. Id. § 501(c)(3). But even 

assuming that Christiansen is a member of a church that is 

exempt under section 501(c)(3), she has not provided any 

authority to support the proposition that a church’s tax-exempt 

status extends to its individual members. 
Christiansen v. Tax Commission

20190570-CA 4 2020 UT App 46

¶8 Under the plain language of the statute, the tax exemption 

belongs to the corporate entity. Id. “In order to be exempt under 

section 501(c)(3), an organization must qualify under both the 

organizational and the operational tests.” Basic Bible Church v. 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 74 T.C. 846, 856 (1980). “The 

operational test requires that an organization’s activities be 

primarily those which accomplish one or more exempt 

purposes” under the statute. Id. Furthermore, to be tax exempt, 

an organization “must establish that it is not operated for the 

benefit of private interests.” Id.

¶9 Christiansen has acknowledged that she is a member of a 

church and has not asserted that she has organized in any form 

within the statute. Additionally, at the formal hearing, she 

acknowledged that she received her own wages for her own 

benefit. The wages did not go to the church. Christiansen, on her 

own, is not eligible for a tax exemption under section 501(c) and 

there is no support for her assertion that she, as an individual, is 

entitled to a corporate church’s exemption.1 This is particularly 

so when her wages were her own and “for the benefit of private 

interests.”

¶10 As Christiansen notes in her brief, the critical fact to be 

determined is whether she was required to file a federal tax 

return which would then require her to file a state tax return. 

The Commission demonstrated that she was required to file a 

federal tax return. Her belief that she was not required to file 

does not negate that fact. The other arguments Christiansen 

asserts have been rejected as “lacking in legal merit and patently 

frivolous.” Lonsdale v. U.S., 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) 

 

1. In contrast to the religious organization exemption under 

section 501(c)(3), under the tax code individuals are broadly 

required to file tax returns and are exempt only if they do not 

meet the minimum income level. 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a).
Christiansen v. Tax Commission

20190570-CA 5 2020 UT App 46

(listing frivolous arguments including “wages are not income” 

and “the income tax is voluntary”).2

¶11 Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Commission’s 

order.3

 

2. “The government may not prohibit the holding of these 

beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.” U.S. v. 

Carman, 2007 WL 9729022 (D. N.M. 2007).

3. Christiansen also requests payment for her time in litigating 

this matter. Generally, pro se litigants are not entitled to recover 

payment for representing themselves. Jones Waldo Holbrook 

& McDonough v. Dawson, 923 P.2d 1366, 1375 (Utah 1996). And, 

even where there is a basis for fees, a litigant must be the 

prevailing party in order to recover. See, e.g., Valcarce v. 

Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 319 (Utah 1998). We therefore deny 

Christiansen’s request for payment.