T.C. Memo. 1997-463
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WALTER E. PETERSON, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 3398-95. Filed October 9, 1997.
Walter E. Peterson, pro se.
Amy Campbell, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner has a
deficiency in Federal income tax for 1992 of $23,768, is liable
for self-employment tax of $8,676, and that he is liable for
additions to tax of $3,942 for failure to file a return under
section 6651(a)(1) and $1,038 for failure to pay estimated tax
under section 6654(a).
- 2 -
As discussed below, we reject petitioner frivolous tax
protester arguments and sustain respondent's determination.
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect in the year in issue. Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Background
A. Petitioner
Petitioner was married when he filed his petition in this
case and lived in Roswell, Georgia. Petitioner's wife filed a
Federal income tax return, Form 1040, for 1992 in which she
itemized her deductions.
B. Petitioner's Income
Petitioner received $66,978 in nonemployee compensation in
1992 from the following sources: (1) $2,106 from Massachusetts
General Life Insurance Co.; (2) $3,822 from Pioneer Life
Insurance Co. of Illinois; (3) $1,804 from Western Fidelity
Marketing, Inc.; (4) $48,602 from National Group Life Insurance
Co.; and (5) $10,644 from Pyramid Life Insurance Co. In 1992, he
received $22 in interest from Provident Bank and $9 in interest
from Bank South and he forfeited $15 in interest from Provident
Bank. In 1992, Twentieth Century Investors, Inc., paid
petitioner $30 for capital stock for a $30 capital gain.
Twentieth Century Investors, Inc., also paid petitioner $3 in
1992, $2 of which was a dividend and the remaining $1 of which
was a capital gain.
- 3 -
C. Petitioner's 1992 Return
Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return, Form
1040, for 1992. Instead, he filed a U.S. Nonresident Alien
Income Tax Return, Form 1040NR. On that return, he reported no
income or other amounts and wrote "na" or "not applicable" on the
lines for home address and income, adjustments, tax, credits, and
other taxes. Petitioner did not pay any Federal income tax for
1992.
D. Trial
Petitioner did not offer any evidence contrary to
respondent's determination. The Court advised petitioner that he
had the burden of proof and noted that he had presented no
evidence to meet that burden.
Respondent moved for summary judgment at trial on October
23, 1997, because petitioner had admitted receiving the income as
determined in the notice of deficiency, offered no contrary
evidence, and made only tax protester arguments. When respondent
made that motion, it was clear that petitioner had refused to
submit further evidence and was relying only on tax protester
arguments.
Discussion
A. Petitioner's Tax Protester Arguments
Petitioner submitted a pretrial memorandum in which he
listed as issues for trial: (1) Whether section 61 applies to
him; (2) whether he must file a Form 1040; (3) whether he is
- 4 -
required to pay tax; and (4) whether the substitute for return
under section 6020(b) applies only to alcohol, tobacco, and
firearm activities. Petitioner listed no witnesses in his
pretrial memorandum. He relied on his proposed stipulation of
facts as the statement of facts in his pretrial memorandum.
Petitioner also submitted a white notebook which contained
materials stating his position in this case. The Court filed
petitioner's pretrial memorandum, white notebook, and statement
to make a record of his contentions.
Petitioner contends that the income tax is invalid and
denies that it applies to him. Petitioner said that he
researched tax law and decided to file a return for a non-
resident alien because he believed that he was entitled to
receive a refund of tax that he had previously paid. In his
response to respondent's proposed stipulation of facts, he said
that he should not have filed a Form 1040NR return because he did
not know of any obligation he had to file any return.
Petitioner also contends that: (1) He was not liable for
tax because he was not involved in any excisable activity; (2)
respondent's substitute for return is invalid because section
6020(b) only applies to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms; (3) Form
1040 is not the proper form for an individual taxpayer to file;
(4) payment of income tax is voluntary, and he did not volunteer
to pay it; (5) he did not receive due process; (6) he did not
receive notice that he was required to keep records; (7)
- 5 -
respondent has the burden of proof as the proponent of rules; and
(8) the notice of deficiency violates sections 3504(h), 3507(a),
and 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. secs.
3501-3520 (1988).1
Petitioner's contentions are a rehash of frivolous tax
protester arguments. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007
(9th Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; United States v.
Romero, 640 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981). His arguments have been
uniformly rejected by this and other courts. Abrams v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 406-407 (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 address petitioner's contentions here. See, e.g., Crain v.
Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Solomon v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, affd. without published
opinion 42 F.3d 1391 (7th Cir. 1994).
B. Deficiency
Petitioner stipulated that he received the amounts of income
as determined by respondent.2
1
See Aldrich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-290 and cases
cited therein, for a discussion of the effect of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. secs. 3501-3520 (1988), on the
deficiency process.
2
Respondent determined and concedes that petitioner may
deduct $15 for forfeited interest. Petitioner did not know that
he was entitled to deduct that amount.
- 6 -
Petitioner's filing status was married, filing separately in
1992. Sec. 1(d). Petitioner's wife filed a separate return in
which she itemized deductions. Petitioner is not entitled to a
standard deduction because his spouse itemized deductions on her
return. Sec. 63(c)(6)(A). We sustain respondent's determination
that petitioner has a $23,768 income tax deficiency for 1992.
C. Self-Employment Tax
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for self-
employment tax of $8,676, section 1401, and that he may deduct
self-employment tax of $4,338, section 164(f), for 1992. We
sustain respondent's determination on this point.
D. Addition to Tax for Failure To File a Return
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the
addition to tax for failure to file a return. Sec. 6651(a).
Petitioner contends that he is not liable for this addition to
tax because he is an individual and not a person, and he was not
involved in excisable activity.
Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of up to 25
percent for failure to timely file Federal income tax returns
unless the taxpayer shows that such failure was due to reasonable
cause and not willful neglect. Petitioner did not file a Form
1040 for 1992. A Form 1040 which discloses no information
relating to a taxpayer's income is not a return within the
meaning of section 6011. Hatfield v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 895
(1977); Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 79-80 (1975), affd.
- 7 -
without published opinion 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977); see also
Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219 (1944). Petitioner
filed an incomplete Form 1040NR on which he reported no income or
other amounts. Petitioner offered no evidence to show, contrary
to respondent's determination, that his Form 1040NR is a valid
return for purposes of section 6651(a)(1). Petitioner's Form
1040NR is not a valid return for purposes of section 6651.
Petitioner made no attempt to show that his failure to file
a timely return was due to reasonable cause and not willful
neglect except for his frivolous contentions about the income tax
system. We sustain respondent's determination that petitioner is
liable for the addition to tax for failure to file a return under
section 6651(a) for 1992.
E. Failure To Pay Estimated Tax
Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for the
addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section
6654.
The addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under
section 6654 applies unless the taxpayer shows that he or she
meets one of the computational exceptions provided in section
6654(e), none of which applies here. Petitioner offered no
evidence to show why he did not pay estimated tax. We sustain
respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for the
addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section
6654 for 1992.
- 8 -
For the foregoing reasons,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.3
3
Because petitioner bears the burden of proof on all
disputed issues, Rule 142(a), the result in this case would be no
different if we decided it based on respondent's motion for
summary judgment (which we will deny as moot).