DocketNumber: No. 6291-04
Citation Numbers: 90 T.C.M. 102, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 184, 2005 T.C. Memo. 184
Judges: "Vasquez, Juan F."
Filed Date: 7/26/2005
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax:
Additions to Tax |
Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6654(a) |
1999 | $9,606.50 | $2,690.72 | $333.90 |
2000 | 8,509.00 | 3,148.33 | 457.64 |
2001 | 8,794.00 | 2,726.14 | 348.00 |
All section references are to the applicable Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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 his petition, petitioner resided in Arlington, Texas.
On January 14, 2004, respondent issued petitioner separate notices of deficiency for 1999, 2000, and 2001. After receiving the notices*186 of deficiency for 1999, 2000, and 2001, on January 28, 2004, January 30, 2004, and January 30, 2004, respectively, petitioner signed Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1999, 2000, and 2001. On February 8, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service received petitioner's Forms 1040 for 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Forms 1040 for 1999, 2000, and 2001 listed zeros for, among other things, the amount of petitioner's income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, tax, total tax, and payments and the amount petitioner overpaid, wanted refunded, and owed.
II. 1999
During 1999, petitioner worked for Allstate Insurance Co. (AIC). AIC issued petitioner a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 1999 reflecting wages of $ 45,414.84 and Federal income tax withholding of $ 2,512.77. During 1999, petitioner also worked for Practice Practice, Inc. (PPI). PPI issued petitioner a Form W-2 for 1999 reflecting wages of $ 2,648 and Federal income tax withholding of $ 60.
In 1999, petitioner received a taxable distribution from the AIC Savings and Profit Sharing Plan. Petitioner received a Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, *187 etc., from AIC for 1999 listing a gross distribution in the amount of $ 4,700, a taxable distribution in the amount of $ 3,885, and Federal income tax withholding in the amount of $ 777.
III. 2000
During 2000, petitioner worked for AIC. AIC issued petitioner a Form W-2 for 2000 reflecting wages of $ 46,754.84 and zero Federal income tax withheld. Petitioner received $ 13 of interest in 2000. Arlington Federal Credit Union (AFCU) issued petitioner a Form 1099-INT, Interest Income, for 2000 reflecting this interest.
IV. 2001
During 2001, petitioner worked for AIC. AIC issued petitioner a Form W-2 for 2001 reflecting wages of $ 46,465 and zero Federal income tax was withheld. Petitioner received a $ 4 ordinary dividend in 2001. Datek Online Holdings Corp. issued petitioner a Form 1099-DIV, Dividends and Distribution, for 2001 reflecting this dividend. Petitioner received $ 11 of interest in 2001. AFCU issued petitioner a Form 1099-INT for 2001 reflecting this interest.
OPINION
As a general rule, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the Commissioner's deficiency determinations incorrect.
At trial, petitioner testified and stipulated he received the wages, pension distribution, interest, and dividend set forth in the notices of deficiency. Petitioner, however, disputed that the aforementioned amounts are income. Accordingly, as petitioner does not dispute the facts, failed to introduce credible evidence, and has not asserted a reasonable dispute regarding the items listed on the information returns,
At trial and on brief, petitioner advanced shopworn arguments regarding why the wages, pension distribution, interest, and dividend are not income. His arguments are characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. See
Accordingly, with the exception of the amounts conceded by respondent, we sustain respondent's deficiency determinations for 1999, 2000, and 2001.
A.
Petitioner stipulated that he filed his Forms 1040 for 1999, 2000, and 2001 on February 8, 2004. Individuals are required to file a Federal income*191 tax return on or before April 15, following the close of the calendar year.
Petitioner offered no credible evidence to show that the failure to file on the date prescribed was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determinations that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to
B.
Petitioner had zero withholding for 2000 and 2001. Petitioner's Forms 1040 for 1999, 2000, and 2001 were not signed or filed prior to his receipt of the notices of deficiency for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Additionally, the Forms 1040 for 1999, 2000, and 2001 listed zeros for, among other things, the amount of income, *192 of adjusted gross income, of taxable income, of tax, of total tax, of payments, overpaid, petitioner wanted refunded, and amount he owed. Accordingly, the Forms 1040 for 1999, 2000, and 2001 are not considered valid returns for purposes of
Petitioner offered no credible evidence related to this issue and failed to address it on brief. See
III.
Prior to trial, petitioner filed several documents containing frivolous and groundless arguments with the Court. The Court specifically warned petitioner that we may penalize petitioner up to $ 25,000 pursuant to
We conclude that petitioner's position was frivolous and groundless and that petitioner instituted and maintained these proceedings primarily for delay. Accordingly, pursuant to
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under
1. Respondent concedes that (1) Texas community property laws are applicable to petitioner, (2) petitioner's income listed in the notice of deficiency must be reduced in accordance with Texas community property laws, (3) petitioner's filing status is married filing separately, (4) no addition to tax pursuant to
Mendes v. Comm'r , 121 T.C. 308 ( 2003 )
Robert P. Wilcox v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 848 F.2d 1007 ( 1988 )
Carey K. Parker Mary E. Parker v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 117 F.3d 785 ( 1997 )
Alton M. Parker, Sr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 724 F.2d 469 ( 1984 )
Norman E. Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Gary ... , 791 F.2d 68 ( 1986 )
Robert D. Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 793 F.2d 139 ( 1986 )
Glenn Crain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 737 F.2d 1417 ( 1984 )
Norman D. Carter and Cecilia P. Carter v. Commissioner of ... , 784 F.2d 1006 ( 1986 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )