David Gilmartin ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Tax Court
    
    T.C. Memo. 2022-64
    DAVID GILMARTIN,
    Petitioner
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
    Respondent
    —————
    Docket No. 21604-18.                                          Filed June 23, 2022.
    —————
    David Gilmartin, pro se.
    Melissa Jane Hedtke, for respondent.
    MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
    VASQUEZ, Judge: For taxable years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
    2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010 (years in issue),
    respondent determined federal income tax deficiencies and additions to
    tax as follows: 1
    1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal
    Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references
    are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
    Served 06/23/22
    2
    [*2]
    Additions to tax
    Year        Deficiency
    § 6651(f)         § 6651(a)(2)     § 6654
    1997                    $33,163       $24,043.18          $8,290.75      $1,763.53
    1998                      9,971         7,228.98           2,492.75         452.59
    1999                     34,586        25,074.85           8,646.50       1,661.08
    2000                     43,357        31,433.83          10,839.25       2,331.92
    2001                     31,173        22,600.43           7,793.25       1,245.79
    2002                     13,779         9,989.78           3,444.75         460.45
    10,095         1,565.28             539.75       -0-
    2004
    36,599        24,060.58           8,296.75       1,315.95
    2005
    3,448             898.28           309.75       -0-
    2006
    21,831         2,201.10             759.00       -0-
    2008
    26,797         4,183.97           1,442.75       -0-
    2009
    24,363         3,675.03           1,267.25       -0-
    2010
    The issues for decision are whether (1) petitioner failed to report taxable
    income for the years in issue; (2) petitioner is liable for self-employment
    tax on nonemployee compensation received during taxable years 1997,
    1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006; (3) petitioner is
    liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for the years in issue;
    (4) petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6654 for taxable
    years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2005; and (5) the Court
    should impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1).
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. We
    incorporate the parties’ First Stipulation of Facts, First Supplemental
    Stipulation of Facts, Second Supplemental Stipulation of Facts, and
    accompanying exhibits by this reference.         Petitioner resided in
    California when he filed his Petition.
    Compensation for services and other economic activities
    Petitioner has a doctorate in economics. During the years in issue
    he worked as an economist for various employers and clients. 2
    2 Petitioner performed a variety of services, including (1) analyzing and
    reconstructing clinical databases, (2) forecasting potential bad debt, (3) performing
    3
    [*3] Petitioner’s clients, for which he performed consulting work,
    included General Electric Capital Corp., Pfizer, Inc., WCI Financial
    Corp., NU Skin International, Inc., the Builders Association, Inc.,
    National Economic Research Associates, Allegiance Group, and Atlantic
    Search Group, Inc. Those businesses compensated petitioner for his
    services and issued him Forms 1099–MISC, Miscellaneous Income.
    Petitioner’s employers included Klein Management Systems, Software
    Guidance & Assistance, Inc., Trans Action Information, Aerotek, Inc.,
    Network Integration, and Eliassen Group, LLC. Those businesses paid
    wages to petitioner and issued him Forms W–2, Wage and Tax
    Statement.
    In 1997 petitioner received interest income of $29 and $31 from
    Chase Manhattan Bank and First National Bank, respectively. Those
    entities issued petitioner Forms 1099–INT, Interest Income, reporting
    those payments. The following year, petitioner received $671 for the
    sale of stocks and bonds. In connection therewith, First Chicago Trust
    Co. of New York issued petitioner Form 1099–B, Proceeds From Broker
    and Barter Exchange Transactions, reporting the sales proceeds. In
    2005 and 2006 petitioner received distributions of $17,063 and $11,045,
    respectively, from an investment account held at Sungard Business
    Systems (Sungard).       Sungard issued petitioner Forms 1099–R,
    Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing
    Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., reporting that those
    distributions were taxable.
    Tax noncompliance and criminal conviction
    Petitioner failed to file federal income tax returns for taxable
    years 1989 through 2010. On June 25, 2012, a grand jury returned an
    indictment with respect to those taxable years, charging petitioner with
    (1) corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration
    of the internal revenue laws under section 7212(a), (2) tax evasion under
    section 7201, and (3) mail fraud under 
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
    . 3 On July 16,
    2013, after a jury trial, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
    of New York entered a judgment of guilty as to each count set forth in
    profitability analyses, (4) updating a trading system for over-the-counter options on
    government securities for a large brokerage firm, (5) conducting statistical analyses,
    and (6) analyzing and preparing testimony for companies involved in various patent
    and antitrust litigation.
    3 The grand jury also charged petitioner with failing to file an income tax
    return and failing to pay tax under section 7203 with respect to taxable year 2005.
    4
    [*4] the indictment. The district court imposed a prison sentence of 4
    years, supervised release of 3 years, and restitution of $1,672,399.62.
    After petitioner appealed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
    Circuit affirmed the conviction on May 10, 2017.
    In both the district court and appellate proceedings, petitioner
    advanced arguments that this Court and others have found to be
    frivolous. In a summary order affirming petitioner’s conviction, the
    Second Circuit rejected those arguments, stating: “We have consistently
    rejected [petitioner’s] arguments, and they do not provide a basis for
    [petitioner] to challenge his conviction.” United States v. Gilmartin, 684
    F. App’x 8, 12 (2d Cir. 2017).
    Substitutes for returns, notice of deficiency, and proceedings in this Court
    Having received no returns from petitioner for the years in issue,
    respondent prepared substitutes for returns (SFRs) on the basis of third-
    party reporting. 4 See § 6020(b). On July 30, 2018, respondent issued
    petitioner a notice of deficiency determining that he had taxable income
    as follows:
    Tax year         1997        1998       1999       2000      2001       2002
    Wages           $87,998      $37,009     $1,518     -0-       -0-        -0-
    Gross            38,844       11,600    102,450   $129,044   $93,500   $49,760
    receipts
    Interest                60    -0-           -0-     -0-       -0-        -0-
    Taxable           -0-         -0-           -0-     -0-       -0-        -0-
    distribution
    Short-term        -0-           671         -0-     -0-       -0-        -0-
    capital gain
    Total         $126,902      $49,280   $103,968   $129,044   $93,500   $49,760
    4 Each of the SFRs includes Form 4549–A, Income Tax Examination Changes
    (Unagreed and Excepted Agreed), Form 886–A, Explanation of Items, and Form 13496,
    IRC Section 6020(b) Certification.
    5
    [*5] Tax year       2004        2005        2006        2008        2009        2010
    Wages             $31,500       -0-           -0-    $108,442    $127,481    $118,828
    Gross              20,000     $99,043     $12,240       -0-         -0-         -0-
    receipts
    Interest            -0-         -0-           -0-       -0-         -0-         -0-
    Taxable             -0-        17,063      11,045       -0-         -0-         -0-
    distribution 5
    Short-term          -0-         -0-           -0-       -0-         -0-         -0-
    capital gain
    Total            $51,500   $116,106      $23,285   $108,442    $127,481     $118,828
    The notice of deficiency also includes a determination that
    petitioner is liable for self-employment tax on the nonemployee
    compensation he had received during 1997 through 2002 and 2004
    through 2006. 6 Moreover, respondent determined additions to tax
    under section 6651(a)(2) and (f) for all years in issue. 7 For 1997, 1998,
    1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2005, respondent also determined additions
    to tax under section 6654.
    After petitioner timely petitioned this Court, this case was set for
    trial at a Los Angeles, California, Trial Session of the Court. Before
    trial, petitioner stipulated that he had received all of the wages and
    gross receipts determined by respondent. He advanced only frivolous
    arguments at trial—namely, that individuals are not liable for income
    tax on their wages and/or compensation for services.
    The notice of deficiency characterizes the 2005 and 2006 distributions from
    5
    Sungard as distributions from an individual retirement account (IRA).
    6For each year he determined self-employment tax, respondent allowed
    petitioner a deduction for one-half of the self-employment tax to be paid.
    7 On November 26, 2019, respondent filed a Motion for Partial Summary
    Judgment. Therein respondent argued that petitioner’s criminal conviction under
    section 7201 collaterally estopped him from contesting that he had fraudulently failed
    to file his federal income tax returns under section 6651(f) for the years in issue. See
    George v. Commissioner, 
    T.C. Memo. 2015-158
    , at *26 (“[A] conviction under section
    7201 based upon failure to file a return will constitute collateral estoppel for the
    fraudulent failure to file penalty under section 6651(f).”), aff’d, 
    837 F.3d 79
     (1st Cir.
    2016).     By Order dated January 21, 2020, we granted respondent’s motion.
    Accordingly, we do not further address herein petitioner’s liability for the section
    6651(f) additions to tax.
    6
    [*6] At the conclusion of trial, respondent made an oral motion to
    impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty against petitioner. The Court told
    petitioner that there was extensive caselaw rejecting his arguments and
    sanctioning taxpayers who made similar arguments. The Court also
    read the text of section 6673(a)(1) to petitioner before taking
    respondent’s Motion under advisement.
    Petitioner subsequently filed a 147-page Simultaneous Opening
    Brief expounding the frivolous arguments he had raised at trial.
    OPINION
    I.     Unreported income
    A.      Burden of proof
    Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of
    deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
    proving that the Commissioner’s determinations are erroneous. 8 See
    Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 
    290 U.S. 111
    , 115 (1933). In cases of
    unreported income, the Commissioner must establish an evidentiary
    foundation connecting the taxpayer to the income-producing activity,
    Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 
    596 F.2d 358
    , 361 (9th Cir. 1979), rev’g
    
    67 T.C. 672
     (1977), or demonstrate that the taxpayer actually received
    income, Edwards v. Commissioner, 
    680 F.2d 1268
    , 1270–71 (9th Cir.
    1982). Information supplied to the Internal Revenue Service on Forms
    W–2 and 1099 is sufficient to meet this burden. See Hardy v.
    Commissioner, 
    181 F.3d 1002
    , 1005 (9th Cir. 1999), aff’g 
    T.C. Memo. 1997-97
    ; Holland v. Commissioner, 
    T.C. Memo. 2021-129
    , at *5, aff’d per
    curiam without published opinion, 
    2022 WL 1619849
     (4th Cir. May 23,
    2022). Once the Commissioner makes the required threshold showing,
    the burden shifts to the taxpayer to prove by a preponderance of the
    evidence that the Commissioner’s determinations are arbitrary or
    erroneous. See Williams v. Commissioner, 
    999 F.2d 760
    , 763 (4th Cir.
    8 Section 7491(a) provides that if, in any court proceeding, a taxpayer
    introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining
    the liability for tax and meets other prerequisites, the burden of proof rests on the
    Commissioner as to that factual issue. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 
    116 T.C. 438
    , 440–
    41 (2001). Petitioner has neither claimed nor shown that he satisfied the requirements
    of section 7491(a) to shift the burden of proof to respondent.
    7
    [*7] 1993), aff’g 
    T.C. Memo. 1992-153
    ; Holland, 
    T.C. Memo. 2021-129
    ,
    at *5.
    Respondent has established an evidentiary foundation linking
    petitioner to the unreported income at issue. Petitioner stipulated that
    he received the wages and gross receipts determined by respondent.
    Petitioner also stipulated the existence of Forms 1099 reporting his
    interest income for 1997 and stock sales for 1998. With respect to
    respondent’s determinations of taxable distributions for 2005 and 2006,
    the record includes Forms 1099–R reporting those distributions.
    Accordingly, respondent’s determinations of unreported income for the
    years in issue are presumed correct, and petitioner bears the burden of
    proving that those determinations are erroneous. 9 See Rule 142(a)(1);
    Welch v. Helvering, 
    290 U.S. at 115
    .
    B.      Wages and gross receipts
    Respondent determined that petitioner had unreported wages
    and/or nonemployee compensation from employers and/or clients for the
    years in issue. Petitioner, as best we can understand from his
    Simultaneous Opening Brief, contends that he is not liable for tax on
    compensation for his services.
    Section 1 imposes an income tax on taxable income, and section
    63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions. Section
    61(a) defines gross income to include “income from whatever source
    derived.” More specifically, section 61(a)(1) includes in an individual’s
    gross income any compensation for services. Clearly, the wages and
    nonemployee compensation petitioner received from his employers and
    clients is gross income for federal income tax purposes.             See
    Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 
    348 U.S. 426
    , 431 (1955) (stating
    that gross income includes all accessions to wealth that are clearly
    realized and under the control of the taxpayer); McNair v. Eggers, 
    788 F.2d 1509
    , 1510 (11th Cir. 1986) (describing the taxpayer’s argument
    that his wages were not income as “patently frivolous”); Grimes v.
    9 Under section 6201(d), if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect
    to an item of income reported on an information return filed by a third party and the
    taxpayer meets certain other requirements, the Commissioner bears the burden of
    producing reasonable and probative evidence, in addition to the information return,
    concerning the deficiency attributable to the income item. However, section 6201(d) is
    not applicable here because petitioner’s frivolous arguments do not constitute a
    “reasonable dispute” with respect to an item of income. See, e.g., Nelson v.
    Commissioner, 
    T.C. Memo. 2012-232
    , at *7–8, aff’d, 540 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2013).
    8
    [*8] Commissioner, 
    82 T.C. 235
    , 237 (1984), aff’d per curiam, 
    806 F.2d 1451
     (9th Cir. 1986); Reiff v. Commissioner, 
    77 T.C. 1169
    , 1173 n.7
    (1981).
    Petitioner’s assertion to the contrary—i.e., that the payments
    made to him for his services are not taxable—is frivolous and
    characteristic of rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and
    other courts. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 
    848 F.2d 1007
     (9th Cir. 1988),
    aff’g 
    T.C. Memo. 1987-225
    ; Samples v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-
    167. The Court need not address petitioner’s assertions “with somber
    reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that
    these arguments have some colorable merit.”               See Crain v.
    Commissioner, 
    737 F.2d 1417
    , 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Wnuck v.
    Commissioner, 
    136 T.C. 498
     (2011). Consequently, we uphold
    respondent’s determinations with respect to petitioner’s wage income
    and nonemployee compensation for the years in issue.
    C.      Other income
    Respondent determined that petitioner did not report interest
    income for 1997, short-term capital gain income for 1998, and IRA
    distributions for 2005 and 2006. Section 61(a)(3) and (4) includes in an
    individual’s gross income interest payments and gains derived from
    dealings in property. Subject to certain exceptions, amounts distributed
    from an IRA are includible in a taxpayer’s gross income as provided in
    section 72. § 408(d)(1).
    Petitioner has directed us to no evidence showing respondent’s
    determinations of unreported income to be arbitrary or erroneous. 10 We
    therefore sustain respondent’s determinations in full.
    II.    Self-employment tax
    Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for self-
    employment tax on the nonemployee compensation he had received
    during 1997 through 2002 and 2004 through 2006.
    10 With respect to the 2005 and 2006 distributions, the parties’ First
    Supplemental Stipulation of Facts characterizes the Sungard account as an
    investment account rather than an IRA. Respondent determined that the distributions
    were taxable on the basis of Forms 1099–R filed by Sungard. Petitioner has not offered
    any evidence to establish a basis in that account or otherwise refute respondent’s
    determination that the distributions were taxable.
    9
    [*9] Section 1401(a) imposes, in addition to other taxes, a tax “on the
    self-employment income of every individual.” Self-employment income
    generally consists of the gross income derived by an individual from any
    trade or business carried on by such individual, less the allowable
    deductions attributable to such trade or business, during any taxable
    year. See § 1402(a) and (b).
    Petitioner performed consulting services for several businesses
    and received compensation therefrom at various times during the years
    in issue. Income received as an independent contractor falls within the
    definition of “self-employment income.”        See, e.g., Delgado v.
    Commissioner, 
    T.C. Memo. 2021-84
    , at *5. Other than the meritless
    argument mentioned above, petitioner has made no other arguments as
    to why that income should be excluded from self-employment income.
    We accordingly sustain respondent’s determination that petitioner is
    liable for self-employment tax in the amounts set forth in the notice of
    deficiency.
    III.   Section 6651(a)(2) additions to tax
    For each year in issue, respondent determined that petitioner is
    liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely
    pay his tax liability. Section 6651(a)(2) provides for an addition to tax
    of 0.5% per month up to 25% for failure to pay the amounts shown on a
    return unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause and
    not due to willful neglect.
    Section 7491(c) provides that the Commissioner bears the burden
    of production in any court proceeding with respect to the liability of any
    individual for any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount. See
    Higbee, 116 T.C. at 446. To satisfy the burden of production, respondent
    must produce sufficient evidence that returns showing tax liabilities
    were filed for the years in issue. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 
    127 T.C. 200
    , 210 (2006), aff’d, 
    521 F.3d 1289
     (10th Cir. 2008). A return prepared
    by the Commissioner in accordance with section 6020(b) is treated as
    the return filed by the taxpayer for the purpose of determining the
    amount of the addition under section 6651(a)(2). § 6651(g)(2); Wheeler,
    127 T.C. at 208–09.
    Respondent has the burden of proving that SFRs satisfying the
    requirements of section 6020(b) were submitted. See Cabirac v.
    Commissioner, 
    120 T.C. 163
    , 170–71, 173 (2003), aff’d per curiam
    without published opinion, 
    2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 28852
     (3d Cir. Feb.
    10
    [*10] 10, 2004); Gleason v. Commissioner, 
    T.C. Memo. 2011-154
    , 
    2011 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 151
    , at *38–39; see also Wheeler, 127 T.C. at 210.
    To constitute a section 6020(b) SFR, “the return must be subscribed, it
    must contain sufficient information from which to compute the
    taxpayer’s tax liability, and the return form and any attachments must
    purport to be a ‘return.’” Rader v. Commissioner, 
    143 T.C. 376
    , 382
    (2014) (quoting Spurlock v. Commissioner, 
    T.C. Memo. 2003-124
    , 
    2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 123
    , at *42), aff’d, 616 F. App’x 391 (10th Cir.
    2015). The Court has held that the requirements of section 6020(b) have
    been met where the SFRs consist of Forms 4549–A, Forms 886–A, and
    Forms 13496. See id.; Gleason, 
    2011 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 151
    , at *39–
    40.
    Petitioner’s SFRs include Forms 4549–A, Forms 886–A, and
    Forms 13496 showing unpaid tax liabilities for the years in issue.
    Further, each SFR purports to be a “section 6020(b) return,” contains
    the information necessary to calculate petitioner’s liability, and is
    subscribed. Petitioner’s SFRs constitute valid section 6020(b) returns
    deemed to have been filed by petitioner for purposes of section
    6651(a)(2).   Accordingly, respondent has satisfied the burden of
    production.
    Once the Commissioner meets the burden of production, the
    burden of proof is with the taxpayer to show that the additions to tax
    should not be imposed. See Higbee, 116 T.C. at 446–47. Petitioner’s
    burden requires that he prove that his failure to timely pay his federal
    income tax was due to reasonable cause and was not due to willful
    neglect. See § 6651(a)(2).
    Petitioner has failed to present any evidence that would establish
    that his failure to pay timely was due to reasonable cause, and instead
    he has sought to rely on unreasonable and unsupportable arguments.
    Accordingly, petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section
    6651(a)(2) for the years in issue.
    IV.   Section 6654 additions to tax
    Respondent determined additions to tax under section 6654 for
    1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2005. Section 6654 imposes an
    addition to tax on an individual who underpays his or her estimated tax.
    The addition to tax is calculated with reference to four required
    installment payments of the taxpayer’s estimated tax liability. § 6654(c)
    and (d). Each required installment is equal to 25% of the “required
    11
    [*11] annual payment.” § 6654(d). The burden of production under
    section 7491(c) requires the Commissioner to produce, for each year for
    which the addition is asserted, evidence that the taxpayer had a
    “required annual payment.” See Wheeler, 127 T.C. at 211. Where the
    taxpayer filed no return for the current tax year or the immediately
    preceding tax year, the “required annual payment” is equal to 90% of
    the tax due for the current year. § 6654(d)(1)(B).
    We conclude that respondent has met his burden of production.
    Petitioner stipulated that he did not file returns for taxable years 1989
    through 2010. His “required annual payment” thus equaled 90% of the
    tax due for each of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2005. See
    § 6654(a), (d)(1)(B). The record includes SFRs showing tax due for those
    years. Petitioner has neither argued nor shown that he made the
    “required annual payment” for any of those years. We will therefore
    sustain respondent’s determination of additions to tax under section
    6654.
    V.    Frivolous position penalty
    We now consider respondent’s oral motion to impose a penalty
    against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).         That section
    authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United
    States in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the
    Court that the taxpayer instituted or maintained the proceeding
    primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is
    frivolous or groundless. Respondent contends that a penalty is
    appropriate because petitioner advanced frivolous arguments
    throughout this proceeding. We agree.
    Petitioner was aware that the arguments he advanced in this case
    have been universally rejected by this and other courts. Before trial he
    was convicted of, among other things, tax evasion under section 7201.
    In a summary order affirming his conviction, the Second Circuit stated
    that it has “consistently rejected” petitioner’s arguments.            See
    Gilmartin, 684 F. App’x at 12. After petitioner advanced the same
    arguments at trial, this Court advised him of our longstanding caselaw
    rejecting his arguments. The Court also read the text of section
    6673(a)(1) to petitioner. Despite our warning, petitioner filed a 147-page
    brief expounding his frivolous arguments. We will therefore impose a
    penalty of $5,000 against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
    12
    [*12] We have considered the parties’ arguments and, to the extent not
    addressed herein, conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without
    merit.
    The foregoing considered,
    An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered
    for respondent.