T.C. Memo. 1997-46
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JEROME V. MANCEBO, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 23724-95. Filed January 27, 1997.
Jerome V. Mancebo, pro se.
Richard W. Kennedy, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to section 7443A(b)(3)1 and Rules 180, 181, and 182.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, 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 -
Respondent determined the following deficiencies in Federal
income taxes and additions to tax against petitioner for the
years shown:
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
1991 $2,284 $340 $ 73
1992 2,351 520 90
1993 2,426 607 101
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 to report the following income for
the years indicated:
1991 1992 1993
U.S. Civil Service Retirement $18,420 $19,092 $19,656
Social Security 1,818 1,884 1,944
Interest income 4 3 3
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's legal
residence was Sandy, Utah.
The sole issues for decision are whether the above amounts
constitute gross income, and, if so, whether petitioner is liable
for the additions to tax.
At trial, petitioner admitted that he did not file Federal
income tax returns for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993.
Petitioner admitted that, in prior years, he had filed income tax
returns.
- 3 -
Petitioner retired in 1988 from the Federal Aviation
Administration, an agency of the United States. Petitioner was
an air traffic controller and had 32 years of Federal service.
Petitioner admitted receiving the amounts determined by
respondent in the notice of deficiency but steadfastly maintained
throughout the trial that these amounts did not constitute income
and that he was not liable for any Federal income tax. At trial,
he stated: "I just want it understood that I consider all this a
fraud. The notice of deficiency, the whole thing, the filing of
a form 1040, a return, a false assessment; it's all fraud, Your
Honor."
In his petition, petitioner alleged that "The Commissioner
is not authorized to use a notice of deficiency to collect a
Qualified State Individual Income Tax which is treated, for
deficiency purposes, as a Subtitle A tax pursuant to 26 CFR
1.6001-1." Petitioner did not elaborate on the meaning of this
allegation, since the notice of deficiency relates to Federal
income taxes, and there is no determination in the notice of
deficiency that respondent is attempting to collect a State
income tax. In a pretrial memorandum filed by respondent,
respondent explains that petitioner contends he is a nonresident
alien because he lives in the Utah Republic, not the United
States. The Court takes that to indicate that petitioner
believes that respondent is unlawfully attempting to collect
- 4 -
taxes for the Utah Republic, and that the United States is not a
governmental entity. The argument of petitioner, whatever the
rationale, is nonsensical. Petitioner presented no evidence at
trial to refute the determinations in the notice of deficiency.
To the contrary, petitioner admitted receiving the amounts
characterized as taxable income in the notice of deficiency. The
determinations of the Commissioner in a notice of deficiency are
presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving
that the determinations are in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioner's case is frivolous. All taxpayers with taxable
income are generally required by law to file Federal income tax
returns. Sec. 6012. Under sections 6651 and 7203, taxpayers who
fail to file income tax returns may be subject to civil additions
to the tax and prosecution for criminal offenses. Moreover,
under section 6673(a), this Court may award a penalty in favor of
the United States if any proceeding has been instituted or
maintained in this Court for frivolous reasons or for purposes of
delay. A valid notice of deficiency was issued by respondent to
petitioner pursuant to section 6212. The Court finds no need to
address the frivolous and nonsensical allegations and contentions
of petitioner. To do so might suggest that petitioner's
arguments have some colorable merit, which they do not. See
Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Very
- 5 -
simply stated, petitioner has not established a case nor has he
submitted any evidence to refute respondent's determinations.
Respondent, therefore is sustained as to the deficiencies in tax
and the additions to tax.
At trial, respondent orally moved for the award of a penalty
under section 6673(a). The penalty under section 6673(a) is
applicable whenever it appears to the 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.
On this record, the Court concludes that this proceeding was
instituted and maintained by petitioner primarily for delay, and
that petitioner's position is frivolous and groundless. Under
section 6673(a), the Court may require the taxpayer to pay to the
United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 in such
circumstances. The Court holds that a penalty under section
6673(a) is warranted in this case. Respondent's oral motion is
granted, and the amount of that penalty will be $1,500.
An appropriate order and decision
will be entered for respondent.