T.C. Memo. 2000-236
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JAMES H. K. WONG, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 9076-99. Filed August 3, 2000.
James H. K. Wong, pro se.
Dustin M. Starbuck, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
POWELL, Special Trial Judge: Petitioner did not file a
Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1996. Respondent
determined a deficiency and additions to tax under sections
6651(a)(1), (2), and 66541 in petitioner’s 1996 Federal income
tax in the respective amounts of $7,951, $942.30, $397.86, and
$202.98. The taxable income upon which the notice of deficiency
1
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue.
- 2 -
is predicated was derived from third-party reporting forms.
Petitioner filed a timely petition in which he alleged that he
did not have any income “from any source for the year * * * that
is the subject of a tax” and that he was not required to file any
return for the year. At the time the petition was filed
petitioner resided in Richmond, Virginia.
Petitioner stipulated that during 1996 he (1) “provided
services to the Bank of Hawaii [the Bank] having a fair market
value of $45,784.00"; (2) received from the Bank “property, in
the form of Federal Reserve Notes, having a fair market value of
$45,784.00"; (3) received a State tax refund of $339 during 1996;
(4) received $522 in Federal Reserve Notes for “brokerage sales”
during 1996; and (5) received $20 in dividends during 1996. This
case was calendared for trial on May 17, 2000, in Richmond,
Virginia.
When this case was called from the calendar petitioner
conceded that he received the amounts of income set forth in the
notice of deficiency and stated that the amounts did not
constitute taxable income. From petitioner’s statements and
submissions, petitioner contends that the sale of his labor for
wages does not constitute taxable income. Petitioner also argues
that the payment of income taxes is voluntary, and he is not a
volunteer. Finally, petitioner contends that the 1996 Form 1040,
U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, does not contain a valid “OMB
- 3 -
Control Number”. This Court and other courts have encountered
these and similar arguments repeatedly and we have repeatedly
rejected these arguments as frivolous. See, e.g., Rowlee v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); Crow v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-584, affd. per curiam 92 F.3d 1177 (4th Cir. 1996);
Allnutt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-6, affd. per curiam 956
F.2d 1162 (4th Cir. 1992); Sterner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1989-352; Kearse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-249, affd. per
curiam 883 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1989). The Court, therefore, on its
own motion, grants summary judgment with respect to these issues
and sustains respondent’s determinations.
In many of the cases cited above we awarded penalties under
section 6673. Section 6673(a) provides that, if the Court
determines that proceedings are maintained by a taxpayer
primarily for delay or the position of a taxpayer is groundless
or frivolous, the Court may award penalties to the United States
in an amount not in excess of $25,000. At the hearing,
petitioner acknowledged that he was aware that we have repeatedly
rejected his arguments and have imposed penalties in similar
cases.
- 4 -
Petitioner’s arguments advanced here are frivolous, and there are
no facts militating against awarding a penalty. Accordingly, we
award a penalty to the United States of $4,000 under section
6673.
An appropriate Order and
Decision will be entered.