DocketNumber: Docket No. 23670-88
Citation Numbers: 58 T.C.M. 993, 1989 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 664, 1989 T.C. Memo. 664
Filed Date: 12/21/1989
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
*664
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NIMS,
Additions to Tax - Sections | |||||
Year | Deficiency | 6651(a)(1) | 6653(a)(1) | 6653(a)(2) | 6661 |
1984 | $ 13,108 | $ 1,072 | $ 655 | 50% of interest | $ 2,324 |
due on $ 9,294 |
(Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1984. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
At the time of filing their petition, petitioners were residents of Temecula, California.
On September 18, 1989, respondent filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for protective order and a motion for assessment of damages under
On December 6, 1989, a hearing was held before the Court to consider respondent's motions. Petitioners, pursuant to Rule 50(c), filed a written statement in lieu of an appearance at the hearing.
First, we address respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 120. A judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where a petition raises no justiciable issues.
Petitioners assert that as citizens and residents of the "Republic of the State of California" they are exempt from direct unapportioned tax under
Petitioners' assertion that respondent lacked authority to issue a notice of deficiency to petitioners is also without merit. Section 6212. Petitioners further assert respondent failed to follow proper administrative procedures in issuing his notice of deficiency. This Court generally (as in the case here) will not look behind a deficiency notice to*667 examine evidence used or the propriety of the Commissioner's motives or of the administrative policy or procedures involved in making his determinations.
Petitioners have failed to raise any justiciable issues in their petition. Any issues not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed conceded. Rule 34(b)(4). Petitioners continued to persist in making these tax-protester arguments in both their amended petition and 50(c) statement. Accordingly, respondent's motion for a judgment on the pleadings will be granted.
Respondent's motion for a protective order is rendered moot by this judgment on the pleadings.
Whenever it appears to the Court that a taxpayer's position in a proceeding is frivolous, groundless or instituted primarily for delay, damages in an amount not in excess of $ 5,000 shall be awarded to the United States by the Court in its decision.