DocketNumber: Docket No. 3778-89
Citation Numbers: 62 T.C.M. 1429, 1991 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 659, 1991 T.C. Memo. 612
Judges: GOFFE
Filed Date: 12/10/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
*659
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:
Taxable | Additions to Tax under Sections | |||
Year | Deficiency | 6653(a)(1) | 6653(a)(2) | |
1974 | $ 1,807 | $ 452 | $ 90 | |
1975 | 1,986 | 496 | 99 | |
1976 | 2,578 | 644 | 129 | |
1977 | 2,194 | 548 | 110 | |
1978 | 2,459 | 615 | 123 | |
1979 | 2,684 | 671 | 134 | |
1980 | 3,163 | 791 | 158 | |
1981 | 3,834 | 957 | 191 | |
1982 | 589 | -0- | -0- | N/A |
1983 | 1,317 | -0- | -0- | N/A |
1984 | 2,001 | -0- | -0- | N/A |
Taxable | Additions to Tax under Sections | ||
Year | 6654 | 6653(b)(1) | 6653(b)(2) |
1974 | $ 58 | -0- | N/A |
1975 | 86 | -0- | N/A |
1976 | 96 | -0- | N/A |
1977 | 78 | -0- | N/A |
1978 | 78 | -0- | N/A |
1979 | 112 | -0- | N/A |
1980 | 202 | -0- | N/A |
1981 | 295 | -0- | N/A |
1982 | -0- | $ 294 | |
1983 | 15 | 658 | |
1984 | 58 | 1,000 |
*660
Taxable | Additions to Tax under Sections | |||
Year | Deficiency | 6651(a)(1) | 6653(a)(1) | 6653(a)(2) |
1974 | $ 818 | $ 204 | $ 41 | |
1975 | 906 | 226 | 45 | |
1976 | 1,436 | 359 | 72 | |
1977 | 947 | 237 | 47 | |
1978 | 1,101 | 275 | 55 | |
1979 | 1,187 | 297 | 59 | |
1980 | 1,475 | 369 | 74 | |
1981 | 1,706 | 425 | 85 | |
1982 | 589 | -0- | -0- | N/A |
1983 | 1,317 | -0- | -0- | N/A |
1984 | 2,001 | -0- | -0- | N/A |
Taxable | Additions to Tax under Sections | ||
Year | 6654 | 6653(b)(1) | 6653(b)(2) |
1974 | $ 26 | -0- | N/A |
1975 | 39 | -0- | N/A |
1976 | 54 | -0- | N/A |
1977 | 34 | -0- | N/A |
1978 | 35 | -0- | N/A |
1979 | 50 | -0- | N/A |
1980 | 94 | -0- | N/A |
1981 | 131 | -0- | N/A |
1982 | -0- | $ 294 | |
1983 | 15 | 658 | |
1984 | 58 | 1,000 |
Addition to Tax under Sections | |||
Year | Deficiency | 6653(b)(1) | 6653(b)(2) |
1985 | $ 1,930 | $ 1,209 |
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether the Commissioner correctly determined petitioners' income tax liabilities for the taxable years 1974-84; (2) whether the Commissioner correctly determined petitioners' joint income tax liability for the taxable year 1985; (3) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under
FINDINGS OF*662 FACT
James B. Smith and Jean T. Smith (husband and wife or, collectively, petitioners) were residents of Malad, Idaho, at the time the petition in this case was filed. Petitioners did not file Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1974-84. Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for 1985. Petitioners also did not maintain adequate records during the years in issue with which to prepare the tax returns that were required to be filed.
On February 28, 1990, respondent served on petitioners a request for admissions pursuant to Rule 90. The Court filed what it deemed to be petitioners' response to the request for admissions on March 19, 1990, which this Court found to be insufficient and frivolous, thereby failing to comply with the requirements of Rule 90(c). In an Order dated April 11, 1990, we found petitioners' answers to be groundless within the meaning of
During the years in issue, petitioners received income from the following sources:
Year | Payor | Payee | Form | Amount |
1980 | LA-Z-Boy | James Smith | W-2 | $ 458.11 |
1981 | David J. Joseph | James Smith | W-2 | 80.00 |
1982 | Thiokol, Inc. | James Smith | W-2 | 13,558.20 |
1983 | Thiokol, Inc. | James Smith | W-2 | 22,121.06 |
1984 | Thiokol CU | James Smith | 1099-Int | 18.00 |
1984 | Thiokol, Inc. | James Smith | W-2 | 27,486.63 |
1984 | Ireland Bank | Jean Smith | 1099-Int | 12.00 |
1985 | Thiokol CU | James Smith | 1099-Int | 37.00 |
1985 | Thiokol, Inc. | James Smith | W-2 | 28,304.92 |
$ 92,075.92 |
Mr. Smith claimed eight exemptions on the Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Exemption Certificate, for the period beginning April 1982 to January 30, 1984. He also claimed 14 exemptions during the period beginning January 31, 1984 to June 4, 1985. He then claimed an "exempt" status beginning June 5, 1985 to September 21, 1986. Petitioners were entitled to claim no more than two exemptions during the taxable years at issue.
Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1985 which bore the notation, "filed under protest." They reported the wage income of Mr. Smith reflected on the Form W-2 and the interest income reflected*664 on the Form 1099-Int. They claimed four exemptions and a residential energy credit. They claimed a refund of income tax in the amount of $ 50. The return was due on or before April 15, 1986. It was stamped "RECEIVED OSC 118, FEB 22 1988, IRS-OGDEN, UTAH" which is nearly two years after the due date. No extension of time was sought by petitioners from, nor granted by, the Commissioner.
The Commissioner mailed statutory notices of deficiency to petitioners on November 25, 1988. In the notices covering the taxable years 1974 through 1984, the Commissioner determined deficiencies in tax and additions to tax against each petitioner separately. The notice of deficiency covering the taxable year 1985 was based upon the examination of petitioners' joint return for the taxable year 1985. In that notice the Commissioner disallowed the residential energy credit and allowed only two of the four exemptions claimed. He also determined that the return was fraudulent and determined the addition to tax under
OPINION
We must first decide whether petitioners received taxable income for the taxable years 1974 through*665 1984, inclusive. Petitioners admit that they did not file income tax returns, therefore respondent was forced to reconstruct petitioners' income.
Under
The Commissioner determined petitioners' income for the taxable years 1974 through 1981, inclusive, using data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. THE COURT: Now what evidence are petitioners going to offer to show that those amounts of income are not correct? THE WITNESS: I'm not going to offer any evidence in that respect, but I intend to enter evidence from the Revenue Code as to who is and who isn't a taxpayer. * * *
We thus conclude that petitioners' taxable income as reconstructed by respondent for the taxable years 1974 through 1984, inclusive, is correct. Petitioners have presented no evidence of any deductions or credits which would be allowable for those years.
The Commissioner determined a deficiency in tax for the taxable year 1985 based upon disallowance of the residential energy credit and entitlement to two exemptions. Petitioners*667 offered no evidence to support allowance of the credit or the exemptions claimed over those disallowed. Accordingly, the determination of the Commissioner is sustained.
The next issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the additions to tax under
Petitioners offered no records at trial; therefore, we conclude that they had none. Petitioners failed to maintain records as required by
The next issue is whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under
Petitioners filed no returns for the taxable years 1982 through 1984. Accordingly, they underpaid their tax for those taxable years. An underpayment for purposes of
Petitioners filed a joint return for the taxable year 1985 on which they claimed credit for tax withheld from Mr. Smith's wages. The Commissioner allowed two of the four exemptions claimed and disallowed the residential energy credit which adjustments were not contested by petitioners. These adjustments produced a deficiency in income tax and an underpayment of income tax.
Having found that there were underpayments of tax for the taxable years 1982 through 1985, the remaining question is whether such underpayments were due to fraud. The existence of*670 fraud is a question of fact to be resolved upon a consideration of the entire record.
Fraud is never presumed.
Courts have relied on a number of indicia of fraud in deciding
In a previous case in this Court involving these petitioners, petitioners had filed returns for the taxable years 1969 and 1970.
Petitioners refused to stipulate to undisputed facts and made no attempt to cooperate in any way with authorities from the Internal Revenue Service. Instead, they advanced nothing more*673 than the usual "protestor" arguments. Reliance upon frivolous tax protestor arguments which have often been rejected by the courts can be evidence of fraud.
The next issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under
Petitioners were well*674 aware of their obligation to file income tax returns. They have been the subject of previous cases before this Court advancing traditional well-worn tax protestor arguments. See
Petitioners' reasons for not filing income tax returns were because they claim that: (1) They are not taxpayers under the Internal Revenue Code; (2) receipt of income is not a taxable event; (3) the Commissioner's authority to collect taxes was not properly delegated from the Secretary of the Treasury; (4) the regulations, forms, and letters used by the Internal Revenue Service violate the Paperwork Reduction Act because they do not have proper Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers and expiration dates; and finally, (5) the Commissioner should have been collecting the taxes from them all along, and, petitioners argue, if we find against petitioners, this would effectively render them bankrupt.
Petitioners' argument that they are not "taxpayers" is based upon their observation that the money they receive as wages from their labor*675 is "personal property." They contend that working for wages is a right secured by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, they argue, provides for two methods governing the collection of taxes: the rule of apportionment and the rule of uniformity. Of these two methods, petitioners' contend that neither method permits collection of tax measured by income.
Assuming, without deciding, that petitioners' arguments are correct, it would appear that petitioners have failed to read the amendments to the Constitution. Upon ratification of the
As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in We perceive no need to refute these arguments*676 with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system -- including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service * * * -- has long been established. * * *
The issue between apportionment versus uniformity is completely devoid of any arguable merit in law. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has noted the "patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition."
The argument by petitioners that the receipt of income is not a taxable event is equally groundless. Petitioners maintain that income taxes are "excises" (sic) and that "excises are levied upon the happening of an event -- Sales, Manufacturing, Consumption, Privileges, Licenses and Franchises." Petitioners*677 argue that the income tax as presently devised is an excise tax, and there must be one of these triggering events which they have set forth for such a tax to be valid.
To the contrary, the income tax is a tax upon income. It is not an excise tax.
The argument by petitioners that the tax forms which they were required to file did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act is likewise frivolous. This tired issue has been visited repeatedly by this and other courts. It has been conclusively settled.
Further, the additions to tax in issue here arose solely in relation to petitioners' failure to file Forms 1040 reporting their income, and the presence or absence of numbers on the tax forms is irrelevant. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found, in
Petitioners' argument that the Internal Revenue Service is in some way responsible for the magnitude of the additions to tax because it did not monitor petitioners' failure to file their tax returns each year is absurd. The tax system depends upon a scheme of self-assessment, albeit with the "encouragement" of additions to tax if the taxpayer negligently or intentionally disregards the law.
Petitioners cite
In
The facts *681 in
As an afterthought, petitioners make general assertions that the additions to tax under the circumstances are unjustified and unwarranted. We disagree. It is the precise action of these taxpayers for which such additions are entirely appropriate.
All of petitioners' arguments are patently frivolous. We conclude that their failure to file tax returns was not due to reasonable cause but rather the result of intentional neglect. Therefore, we find for respondent and uphold his determination of the additions to tax provided by
We must next decide whether respondent properly determined additions to tax under
Petitioners failed to introduce any evidence on this issue; accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination as to the
We next consider respondent's motion for a penalty under Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that -- (A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay, (B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or (C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies, the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000.
This proceeding involves in part the addition to tax for fraud. In this regard although we are normally reluctant to require a penalty in fraud cases, the record in this case establishes that petitioners have engaged in a crusade lasting more than a decade to simply ignore their obligation to pay income tax. This is not the first time that petitioners have wasted this Court's time. Petitioners have delayed consideration of other cases before this Court by requiring us to consider their worthless theories. It is unfair to other taxpayers with legitimate claims against the*684 Commissioner's determinations to permit tax protestors to repeatedly glut this Court's docket with these types of cases. We have issued fair warning that the continued use of frivolous arguments would be met with the full use of the penalty provisions provided to us by Congress.
Upon review of this record, we find that petitioners have instituted and maintained this action primarily for delay and that petitioners' position in this proceeding is frivolous and groundless. Accordingly, we hold that a penalty is appropriate in this case. Therefore, we will grant respondent's motion for a penalty, and in our decision we will require petitioners to pay to the United States a penalty of $ 10,000.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years 1974 through 1985, and Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
50 percent of the interest due on the portion of the underpayment attributable to negligence. 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment attributable to fraud.
2. See also
3.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad , 36 S. Ct. 236 ( 1916 )
In Re Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. United States of America v. ... , 885 F.2d 547 ( 1989 )
Robinson's Dairy, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 302 F.2d 42 ( 1962 )
Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert , 34 S. Ct. 136 ( 1913 )
anthony-p-cracchiola-and-frances-a-cracchiola-vito-lombardo-and , 643 F.2d 1383 ( 1981 )
Grace M. Powell, of the Estate of O. E. Powell, Deceased v. ... , 252 F.2d 56 ( 1958 )
Glenn Crain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 737 F.2d 1417 ( 1984 )
John Factor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 281 F.2d 100 ( 1960 )
Michael W. Lovell and Phyllis D. Lovell v. United States , 755 F.2d 517 ( 1984 )
Mary Ruark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 449 F.2d 311 ( 1971 )
Mitsukiyo Yoshimura v. Alsup , 167 F.2d 104 ( 1948 )
Estate of Walter F. Rau, Sr., Deceased, Raymond J. Shorb, ... , 301 F.2d 51 ( 1962 )
Leo Grudin and Harriette Grudin v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 536 F.2d 295 ( 1976 )
Neitzke v. Williams , 109 S. Ct. 1827 ( 1989 )
Alice Avery v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 574 F.2d 467 ( 1978 )
United States v. Roy W. Collins , 920 F.2d 619 ( 1990 )
United States v. John E. Buras , 633 F.2d 1356 ( 1980 )
Robert W. Bradford v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 796 F.2d 303 ( 1986 )
Spies v. United States , 63 S. Ct. 364 ( 1943 )