DocketNumber: No. 17616-03
Citation Numbers: 2005 T.C. Memo. 19, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 20
Judges: \"Vasquez, Juan F.\"
Filed Date: 2/8/2005
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
Judgment entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency
1998 $ 9,161 $ 2,223.00 $ 405.52
1999 8,741 2,185.25 423.01
2000 2,887 721.75 154.24
2001 1,187 296.75 --
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine the deficiencies and additions to tax. 1 We must decide whether: (1) Petitioner had unreported income in the amounts determined by respondent for 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001; (2) petitioner*21 is liable for the
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 he filed the petition, petitioner resided in Oakland, California.
Petitioner did not file tax returns for 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Petitioner received total income of $ 38,863, $ 42,486, $ 23,806, and $ 16,830, in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively. Respondent received information from third parties (The Gus Team, Have-a-Party Productions, Johnny B. Soroka, Randall L. Biagi, Bay Area Motorcycle Training, Earl Heckscher Orchestra, Kellco Training Institute, Debs Motorcycle Training, James*22 Labarbera, Hornblower Yachts, Joel Nelson Productions, Bonnie Kellogg/Two Wheel Safety, and Mark William Lytal) reporting that petitioner received the aforementioned income during the years in issue. No Federal income tax was withheld from the aforementioned income.
Petitioner did not cooperate with respondent at any time during the administrative or judicial process. Petitioner failed to meet with or to provide respondent with any information that would have enabled respondent to properly determine petitioner's tax liability.
OPINION
Generally, respondent's deficiency determinations set forth in the notices of deficiency are presumed correct, and petitioner bears the burden of showing the determination is in error.
Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (to which an appeal would normally lie) has held that in order for the presumption of correctness to attach to the notice of deficiency in unreported income cases, 2 the Commissioner must establish "some evidentiary foundation" linking the taxpayer to the income-producing activity,
There is ample evidence, including petitioner's admissions, linking petitioner to several income-producing activities--he worked as a musician, mechanic, and motorcycle instructor during the years in issue. At trial, respondent submitted Forms W-2, Wage and Tax*25 Statement, Forms 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, employer records, and the testimony of several of petitioner's employers as to the validity of these underlying documents. The witnesses also testified that they paid petitioner income during the years in issue. Respondent satisfied his Weimerskirch obligation, and petitioner bears the burden of proving respondent's determinations are in error.
Petitioner alleged that he did not receive the income determined by respondent. Petitioner relies on his own testimony. The Court is not required to accept petitioner's unsubstantiated testimony. See
Petitioner was not credible. His testimony was questionable in certain material respects, and under the circumstances presented here, we are not required to, and generally do not, rely on petitioner's testimony to sustain his burden of establishing error in respondent's determinations. See
Contrary to his assertions, petitioner was required to file Federal income tax returns for each of the years in issue because his income exceeded the maximum amount exempt from filing in each of the taxable years.
Petitioner presented no evidence that he is not liable for this addition to tax for any of the years in issue. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to
D. Penalty Pursuant to
Respondent filed a motion asking the Court to impose a penalty pursuant to
In the petition, petitioner alleged*28 that the deficiencies determined by respondent are excise taxes. This argument is frivolous and groundless.
At trial, petitioner mainly objected to the admission of any evidence that tended to prove that he earned income during the years in issue and sought to impugn the integrity of his former employers by implying that they overstated the income they paid him in order to obtain a fraudulently higher deduction (for compensation paid) on their own tax returns. He feigned lack of memory regarding his earnings during the years in issue even though he admitted working for all the employers who were called as witnesses and that he was paid for services he rendered to those employers. Furthermore, in a home loan application petitioner signed in 2001, petitioner listed his monthly income as $ 9,625.
Petitioner established his pattern of delay early on when he failed to cooperate with respondent. Petitioner failed to meet with or to provide respondent with any information that would have enabled respondent to properly determine petitioner's tax liability or resolve this case without trial. Furthermore, after asking the Court for additional briefing time at the conclusion of the trial, petitioner*29 failed to file any posttrial briefs. We conclude that petitioner instituted and maintained this proceeding primarily for delay.
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for a $ 15,000 penalty pursuant to
In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not mentioned above, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit. To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent.
1. Petitioner also alleged that the deficiencies/liabilities determined by respondent are excise taxes.↩
2. Although
Ronald L. Lerch and Dalene Lerch v. Commissioner of ... , 877 F.2d 624 ( 1989 )
Johnny Weimerskirch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 596 F.2d 358 ( 1979 )
C. Louis Wood and Hallie D. Wood v. Commissioner of ... , 338 F.2d 602 ( 1964 )
William H. And Avilda L. Edwards v. Commissioner of ... , 680 F.2d 1268 ( 1982 )
Gerald J. Rapp and Mary H. Rapp v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 774 F.2d 932 ( 1985 )
Gladys T. Geiger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 440 F.2d 688 ( 1971 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )
Wood v. Commissioner , 41 T.C. 593 ( 1964 )
Weimerskirch v. Commissioner , 67 T.C. 672 ( 1977 )
Tokarski v. Commissioner , 87 T.C. 74 ( 1986 )