T.C. Memo. 1999-12
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JEFFREY THOMAS KEARNEY, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18672-97. Filed January 25, 1999.
Jeffrey Thomas Kearney, pro se.
Steven W. LaBounty, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioner's Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 66541
1995 $17,524 $3,630 $769
1
Respondent conceded that the addition to tax under sec.
6654 does not apply.
- 2 -
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
Petitioner resided in Saint Peters, Missouri, at the time
the petition was filed. Petitioner has not filed a Federal
income tax return for 1995. In the notice of deficiency,
respondent determined that petitioner had income consisting of
wages reported on Forms W-2 in the amount of $16,851, a capital
gain from the sale of stock of $1,402, and taxable distributions
from petitioner's qualified retirement plan of $45,322 for 1995.
After allowance of the standard deduction for 1995 and one
exemption, petitioner's 1995 tax liability was determined based
on the rates applicable to a single person, thereby resulting in
a base income tax liability for 1995 of $12,992. Respondent also
determined that taxable distributions to petitioner from his
qualified retirement plan are subject under section 72(t) to a
penalty of 10 percent as a result of premature distributions and
that petitioner was liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to
tax for failure to file a tax return.
In his petition and amended petition, petitioner did not
assign error to any single adjustment made by respondent in the
notice of deficiency or allege facts to support any assignment of
error. Rather, petitioner alleged in his petition that the "IRS
does not have legal jurisdiction over me to assess a tax against
- 3 -
me, they lack the authority, and in my written requests to them
to prove their authority, they chose to break the law by not
responding." In his amended petition, petitioner alleges that
the "IRS has no legal authority to assess a tax delinquency in
the amount of $17,524.00 against me." The amended petition
asserts that the "delinquency assessment in the amount of
$17,524.00 should be ordered to be held null and void as it does
not apply to compensation for labor."
In his second amended petition, petitioner admits that
during 1995 he received (1) wages of $16,852, (2) IRA
distributions of $42,596, and (3) pension/annuity distributions
of $48,418 (more than respondent determined in the notice of
deficiency). Petitioner assigned error only to the determination
that such amounts are subject to taxation. In the second amended
petition, petitioner alleged that his filing status for 1995 is
head of household, that he is entitled to claim three exemptions
(one for himself and two for dependents described as his son and
daughter), and that he has various itemized deductions.
Petitioner offered no evidence to support his alleged filing
status, his claim of three exemptions, or his purported itemized
deductions.
In general, the determinations made by the Commissioner in a
notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer
bears the burden of proving that those determinations are
erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933). Moreover, any issue not raised in the pleadings is
- 4 -
deemed to be conceded. Rule 34(b)(4); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78
T.C. 646, 658 n.19 (1982); Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 736,
739 (1980).
Petitioner has not offered any evidence to show that
respondent's determination is in error. We, therefore, uphold
respondent's determination as modified by his concession.
The petition, amended petitions, and petitioner's brief
contain nothing but typical tax protester rhetoric. We see no
need to address painstakingly petitioner's basic arguments.
Indeed, they have already been addressed by another court.1
Petitioner is not exempt from Federal income tax. See Abrams v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 406-407 (1984).
Except with respect to
the addition to tax under
section 6654, decision will
be entered for respondent.
1
See In re Kearney, No. 96-45972-399 (Bankr. E.D. Mo., Mar.
20, 1997).