T.C. Memo. 1995-478
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DARYL A. NORBLOM, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 7773-94. Filed October 4, 1995.
Daryl A. Norblom, pro se.
Virginia L. Hamilton, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DINAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and
182.1
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in
issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1992
Federal income tax in the amount of $5,890 and additions to tax
under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654 in the amounts of $1,257 and
$241, respectively.
After a concessions by the parties,2 the issues for decision
are: (1) Whether the "wages" received by petitioner are taxable;
(2) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for
failure to file a return pursuant to section 6651(a) in the
amount of $1,257; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the
addition to tax for underpayment of estimated tax pursuant to
section 6654 in the amount of $241.
No facts have been stipulated. Petitioner resided in
Golden, Colorado, on the date the petition was filed in this
case.
In 1992 petitioner worked for Aspen Office Furniture and
Denver Post from which he received wages in the amounts of
$22,652 and $8,269, respectively. The wages from Aspen Office
Furniture were reported on a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement,
and $863 of Federal income tax was withheld. The wages received
from Denver Post were self-employment income, reported on Form-
1099, Miscellaneous Income. In addition, petitioner received a
taxable State income tax refund from the Colorado Department of
2
Respondent conceded that the notice of deficiency did
not reflect petitioner's withholding of $863. Petitioner
conceded that he must include in his gross income a refund of
State income tax.
- 3 -
Revenue in the amount of $129. Petitioner failed to file a 1992
Federal income tax return.
Petitioner testified that he worked for Aspen Office
Furniture and Denver Post where he earned "wages" not income
during the taxable year. Petitioner's contention that he had no
tax liability is based on various tax protester arguments.
Petitioner is a classic tax protester raising traditional
protester arguments. Such arguments are repeatedly rejected,
United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981), and
need not be addressed by this Court. Crain v. Commissioner, 737
F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111
(1983); Nieman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-533.
The second issue is whether petitioner is liable for the
addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1). Petitioner bears
the burden of proving that respondent's determination is
incorrect. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).
Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to
timely file a return, unless the taxpayer establishes: (1) The
failure did not result from "willful neglect"; and (2) the
failure was "due to reasonable cause". "Willful neglect" has
been interpreted to mean a conscious, intentional failure, or
reckless indifference. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241,
245-246 (1985). "Reasonable cause" requires the taxpayer to
demonstrate that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence
and was nonetheless unable to file a return within the prescribed
- 4 -
time. United States v. Boyle, supra at 246; sec. 301.6651-
1(c)(1), Proced. and Admin. Regs. The addition to tax equals 5
percent of the tax required to be shown on the return for the
first month, with an additional 5 percent for each additional
month or fraction of a month during which the failure to file
continues, not to exceed a maximum of 25 percent. Sec.
6651(a)(1).
Petitioner testified that he did not file a Federal income
tax return for 1992 "because [he] had no tax liability for that
year." Based on the record we find petitioner intentionally
failed to file his 1992 Federal income tax return and is liable
for the addition to tax pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1).
Finally, we address the issue of the addition to tax for
failure to pay estimated income tax under section 6654(a) for the
tax year 1992. This Court stated in Estate of Ruben v.
Commissioner, 33 T.C. 1071, 1072 (1960): "This section has no
provision relating to reasonable cause and lack of willful
neglect. It is mandatory and extenuating circumstances are
irrelevant." Petitioner has failed to show that he did not
underpay his estimated tax. Accordingly respondent's
determination is sustained.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.