T.C. Memo. 1997-253
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
CLYDE FRANKLIN CRAIG, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 17099-95. Filed June 5, 1997.
Clyde Franklin Craig, pro se.
Sandra Veliz, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined a $29,262 deficiency in
petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax, and additions to tax pursuant
to sections 6651(a) and 6654(a) in the respective amounts of
$5,725.50 and $966.79.
-2-
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner failed to
report income during the year in issue; (2) whether petitioner is
liable for a section 6651(a) addition to tax for failure to file a
1992 Federal income tax return; and (3) whether petitioner is
liable for a section 6654(a) addition to tax for failure to make
estimated tax payments for 1992.
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found
accordingly. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits
are incorporated herein by this reference.
Background
Clyde Franklin Craig (petitioner) resided in Seattle,
Washington, at the time he filed his petition. Between 1962 and
1965, he studied physics and electrical engineering at UCLA, but
did not graduate. Petitioner has worked in the electronics
engineering field.
Petitioner concedes that he did not file a 1992 Federal income
tax return.
Petitioner's Sources of Income
In 1992, petitioner worked as a television engineer for King
Broadcasting Co. (KBC), a major television broadcast station in the
Seattle area. His duties included maintaining and repairing the
-3-
station's electronic equipment. Petitioner received $44,628.52 in
wages from KBC; $6,360.58 was withheld for Federal income tax
purposes.
Petitioner had an individual retirement account (IRA) at Key
Trust Co. of the Northwest. During the year in issue, he received
a $49,872 distribution from this IRA. Petitioner did not roll over
the distribution into a qualified retirement account.
Petitioner also received $201.14 in interest income from
Seattle Telco. Federal Credit Union in 1992.
Notice of Deficiency
Respondent found no record of petitioner's having filed a Form
1040 for 1992. Accordingly, respondent determined the deficiency
and additions to tax (set forth in the notice of deficiency) based
upon payor information indicating that petitioner had received
unreported wage, interest, and IRA income in 1992.
OPINION
Issue 1. Unreported Income
Respondent's determinations as to petitioner's tax liability
are presumed to be correct. Petitioner bears the burden of proving
the contrary. See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO Inc. v. Commissioner, 503
U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Section 61 defines gross income as all income from whatever
source derived. Included within the definition of gross income
are "compensation for services", "interest income", and "pensions".
Sec. 61(a)(1), (4), (11).
-4-
Petitioner argues that paying income taxes is strictly
voluntary. We disagree. Petitioner was required to file a 1992
Federal income tax return and was required to pay taxes. See secs.
1, 61, 6011, 6012, 7701(a)(14). Petitioner raised traditional
protester arguments. This Court, as well as the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit where an appeal in this case would lie, have
disapproved of tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish.
See, e.g., Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir.
1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d
1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027,
1029-1030 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983).
We hold that petitioner received taxable wage, interest, and
pension income in 1992. Accordingly, we uphold respondent's
deficiency determination for such year.
Issue 2. Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax
Respondent determined an addition to tax pursuant to section
6651(a) for petitioner's 1992 taxable year. Petitioner can avoid
this addition to tax by proving that his failure to file was: (1)
Due to reasonable cause, and (2) not due to willful neglect. Sec.
6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245-246
(1985); United States v. Nordbrock, 38 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 1994).
"Reasonable cause" requires a taxpayer to demonstrate that he
exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless
unable to file a return within the prescribed time. United States
v. Boyle, supra at 246; sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin.
-5-
Regs. Willful neglect means a conscious, intentional failure to
file or reckless indifference. United States v. Boyle, supra at
245.
Petitioner was required to file a Federal income tax return
for 1992. Sec. 6012. He failed to do so and presented no evidence
to prove that his failure to file was due to reasonable cause and
not willful neglect. Accordingly, respondent's determination of
the section 6651(a) addition to tax is sustained.
Issue 3. Section 6654(a) Addition to Tax
Respondent also determined an addition to tax pursuant to
section 6654(a) for 1992, asserting that petitioner failed to pay
estimated tax. Where payments of tax, either through withholding
or by making estimated quarterly tax payments during the course of
the year, do not equal the percentage of total liability required
under the statute, imposition of the section 6654 addition to tax
is mandatory, unless the taxpayer shows that one of several
statutory exceptions applies. Sec. 6654; Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 222 (1992); Recklitis v. Commissioner,
91 T.C. 874, 913 (1988); Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1,
20-21 (1980). Petitioner bears the burden of proving qualification
for such exception. See Habersham-Bey v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.
304, 319-320 (1982).
Although certain amounts were withheld from petitioner's
wages, petitioner did not make any estimated tax payments for 1992
and introduced no evidence on this issue. Accordingly, we sustain
-6-
respondent's determination pursuant to section 6654(a) for
petitioner's 1992 taxable year.
We have considered all of petitioner's arguments and, to the
extent not discussed above, find them to be without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.