DocketNumber: No. 24733-97
Judges: "Vasquez, Juan F."
Filed Date: 7/22/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
*275 An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
*276 VASQUEZ, JUDGE: By separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' 1995 Federal income tax:
Addition to Tax
Petitioner Deficiency
_______________________________________________________
Kenneth G. Bohnet $ 14,899.00 $ 2,298.50
Kim M. Bohnet 2,419.00 265.75
_______________________________________________________
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
After concessions, *277 tax return for 1995, and (3) whether petitioners engaged in behavior warranting the imposition of a penalty pursuant to
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time they filed their petition, Kenneth G. Bohnet (Mr. Bohnet) and Kim M. Bohnet (Mrs. Bohnet), husband and wife, resided in Ephrata, Washington.
In 1995, Mr. Bohnet earned $ 65,500 from Korach & Wilson Insurance, Inc., $ 855 in nonemployee compensation from Fortis Investors, and $ 173 in interest income. In 1995, Mrs. Bohnet earned $ 21,874 from Grant County, Washington, and $ 11 in interest income. Petitioners did not file a Federal income tax return for 1995.
OPINION
Petitioners do not challenge the facts on which respondent's determinations are based or respondent's calculation of tax. Petitioners stipulated that during 1995 they received wages and interest. At trial and on brief, petitioners advanced shopworn arguments characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. See
We must next decide whether this income is community property income.
Respondent also determined that petitioners are liable for additions to tax pursuant to
By motion made at the conclusion of trial, respondent requested that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to
Petitioners' position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless, and they have wasted the time and resources of this Court. Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's motion, and*282 we shall impose a penalty of $ 2,500 pursuant to
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. Respondent concedes that the credit for withholding income tax for Kim M. Bohnet should be $ 1,976 and not $ 1,356 as determined. Petitioners concede that their interest income for 1995 is taxable.↩
2. Respondent, in separate notices of deficiency sent to Mr. Bohnet and Mrs. Bohnet, determined that Mr. Bohnet is taxable on 100 percent of the compensation and interest he received and Mrs. Bohnet is taxable on 100 percent of the compensation and interest she received. Respondent, however, did not determine that 50 percent of the income earned by each petitioner is taxable income to the nonearning spouse.↩