T.C. Memo. 1996-319
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
SCOTT R. PHILIPS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5057-96. Filed July 15, 1996.
Scott R. Philips, pro se.
Michael H. Salama, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(4)1 and Rules 180, 181, and
183. This case is before us on respondent's Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State A Claim and to Impose a Penalty Under
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
in effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Section 6673, filed pursuant to Rule 40. The Court, sua sponte,
also considers whether to strike portions of the petition under
Rule 52.
Respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to,
petitioner's Federal income taxes, as follows:
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654(a)
1992 $34,134 $8,534 $1,489
1993 69,478 17,370 2,911
The adjustments giving rise to the above deficiencies and
additions to tax are based upon the failure of petitioner to file
Federal income tax returns and report nonemployee compensation,
dividend income, and income from the sale of stock for the years
in issue. The additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) were
based on respondent's determination that petitioner's failure to
file income tax returns for the taxable years in issue was not
due to reasonable cause. Finally, the additions to tax under
section 6654(a) were based on respondent's determination that
petitioner failed to pay the requisite estimated income tax for
the taxable years in issue. Petitioner resided in San Clemente,
California, at the time he filed his petition.
Petitioner filed a petition for redetermination on March 19,
1996. In the petition, petitioner disputed the adjustments as
determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency. The
petition contains assignments of error and statements of facts
- 3 -
relating directly to the determinations made in the notice of
deficiency. Specifically, paragraph 4(A)(1) through (5) for 1992
and paragraph 4(B)(1) through (7) for 1993 contend that
respondent erred in the various specific adjustments. Moreover,
paragraph 5(A)(1) through (5) for 1992 and paragraph 5(B)(1)
through (7) for 1993 clearly allege that petitioner did not
receive the income determined by respondent and that petitioner
is not liable for the deficiencies and additions to tax.
However, the petition contains a paragraph on page 3 which states
the following:
FOR ALL TAX YEARS
(1) Respondent has failed to allege sufficient facts
to establish that Respondent has jurisdiction over
Petitioner in this matter.
(2) By her previous actions, Respondent has attempted
to mislead or has actually misled Petitioner with
respect to the obligation to file tax returns and/or
the obligation to report income.
(3) Respondent failed to provide specific information
as to whether the deficiencies in tax are direct taxes
or indirect (excise) taxes.
As indicated, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State A Claim on April 29, 1996. In her motion to
dismiss, respondent contends that the petitioner fails to allege
clear and concise assignments of error in respondent's deficiency
determination in violation of Rule 34(b)(4). Further, respondent
contends that the petitioner fails to allege clear and concise
lettered statements of fact on which petitioner bases assignments
- 4 -
of error in violation of Rule 34(b)(5). In addition, respondent
contends that the document filed in this matter is not a proper
petition, but rather, is a "statement making frivolous
constitutional arguments with no factual basis"; that the
document filed does not comply with the Rules of the Tax Court as
to the form and content of a petition; that petitioner filed this
document as a protest to paying taxes; and that petitioner is a
devoted tax protester.
Discussion
Rule 40 provides that a party may file a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
We may grant such a motion when it appears beyond doubt that the
party's adversary can prove no set of facts in support of a claim
which would entitle him or her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Price v. Moody, 677 F.2d 676, 677 (8th
Cir. 1982).
Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court
contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error
which the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the
Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and the
additions to tax in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that
the petition contain clear and concise lettered statements of the
facts on which the taxpayer bases the assignments of error. See
Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). The failure of
- 5 -
a petition to conform with the requirements set forth in Rule 34
may be grounds for dismissal. Rules 34(a)(1), 123(b).
The petition filed in this case contains clear and concise
assignments of error and statements of facts. Thus, the petition
satisfies the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5) with the
exception of the above-quoted paragraph. Because the petition
does state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we shall
deny respondent's motion to dismiss.
We turn now, on our own motion, to the issue of whether to
strike the above-quoted paragraph of the petition. Pursuant to
Rule 52, the Court, on its own initiative at any time, may order
stricken from any pleading any insufficient claim or defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, frivolous, or scandalous
matter. See Estate of Jephson v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 999
(1983); Allen v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 577, 579 (1979). The
above-quoted paragraph contains neither assignments of error nor
allegation of facts in support of any justiciable claim. Rather,
such paragraph contains nothing but tax protester rhetoric and
legalistic gibberish. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403
(1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); McCoy v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.
1983). We see no need to catalog petitioner's contentions and
painstakingly address them. The short answer to them is that
petitioner is not exempt from Federal income tax. See Abrams v.
- 6 -
Commissioner, supra at 406-407. The matters set forth in the
above-quoted paragraph consist solely of stale and time-worn tax
protester rhetoric. Because the above-quoted paragraph is
frivolous and immaterial, we order such paragraph stricken from
the petition. Rule 152; see Allen v. Commissioner, supra. Trial
in this case, if necessary, will be limited to the factual issues
concerning petitioner's receipt or nonreceipt of income; the
amount, if any, of the deficiency; and the applicability of the
additions to tax.
Finally, we turn to respondent's motion to impose a penalty
against petitioner under section 6673. As relevant herein,
section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require the
taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of
$25,000 whenever it appears that the proceedings have been
instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or
that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or
groundless.
We note that this is not the first time petitioner has
appeared before this Court to advance tax protester claims. See
Philips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-540. At that time, the
Court explained to petitioner that his arguments, which are
similar to those raised here in the above-quoted paragraph of the
petition, are frivolous tax protester claims. Indeed, the Court
- 7 -
rejected petitioner's contentions and also imposed a penalty of
$10,000.
Based on the petition filed by petitioner, we believe
petitioner is interested in disputing the merits of the
deficiencies in income tax and the additions to tax as determined
by respondent in the notice of deficiency. Accordingly, we will
deny respondent's motion to impose a penalty. However, we
caution petitioner that a continued persistence in frivolous and
groundless protester allegations will subject him to a penalty
under the provisions of section 6673.
In order to reflect the foregoing,
An order denying respondent's
motion and striking a portion of
the petition will be issued.