*346 for various electrical contractors within the State of California. He alleged that he did not reside in any foreign country or within any territory of the United States and that therefore he is "not engaged in any activity upon which Congress has imposed a tax under the provisions of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code." Petitioner makes further allegations in the petition, common in tax protester petitions, regarding the method in which he was selected for audit, as well as the audit techniques utilized by respondent. Petitioner asserts that as a citizen and resident of the "Republic of the State of California," he is exempt from unapportioned tax under Article IV, section 2, clause 1 of the United States Constitution. The short answer is that petitioner is not exempt from Federal income tax. Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403">82 T.C. 403, 406-407 (1984).
In his petition and amendment to petition, petitioner makes tax protester arguments that have been repeatedly rejected by this Court and others as inapplicable or without merit. See, e.g., Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111">80 T.C. 1111 (1983); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027">76 T.C. 1027 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234">696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983). We see no need to repeat these discussions here.
Rule 34(b)(4) and (5) provides in pertinent part that the petition in a deficiency action shall contain "Clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or liability" and "Clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error."
After review of petitioner's petition and amendment to petition, we agree with respondent that the petition does not allege any justiciable error with respect to respondent's determinations in the notice of deficiency and alleges no justiciable facts in support of any error as required by Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Accordingly, decision will be entered for respondent.
Congress has granted this Court the authority to award the United States damages (now called a penalty) up to $ 5,000, *348 the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies. Sec. 6673.
We find petitioner's claims to be frivolous, groundless, and instituted primarily for delay.
This petitioner has been in this Court before and has raised similar tax protester arguments. In docket No. 26062-89, such arguments were rejected and damages of $ 5,000 were awarded to the United States. Wright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-232. In that opinion, we set forth other dockets in which petitioner made frivolous tax protester arguments. For completeness, we reiterate that history.
In docket No. 32226-84, petitioner argued that wages earned by American citizens were not subject to Federal income tax. The Court held that this position is "attenuated, obscure and frivolous. See United States v. Romero,640 F.2d 1014">640 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)." Wright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-552, affd. without opinion 899 F.2d 20">899 F.2d 20 (9th Cir. 1990). This Court awarded damages to the United States in the amount of $ 5,000.
In docket Nos. 33475-86 and 2321-87, petitioner and his wife again raised frivolous tax protester arguments. The Court granted respondent's motions for judgment on the pleadings and awarded total damages of $ 5,000. In docket No. 1163-87, we granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, and held that the position maintained by petitioner and his wife in that case was frivolous. We again awarded damages of $ 5,000.
The decisions in docket Nos. 33475-86, 2321-87, and 1163-87 were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.
Since we have found petitioner's claims in the instant case to be frivolous, groundless, and instituted primarily for delay, we award the United States damages (penalty) in the amount of $ 3,000.
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
Document Info
Docket Number： Docket No. 31592-88
Filed Date： 6/26/1990
Precedential Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/20/2020
