T.C. Memo. 2001-20
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ANNE M. ROGERS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18692-99. Filed January 30, 2001.
Anne M. Rogers, pro se.
M. Kathryn Bellis, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies and
additions to tax in petitioner’s Federal income taxes for 1996
and 1997 as follows:
Additions to Tax, I.R.C.
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
1996 $21,813 $ 942.25 $ 93.88
1997 32,519 1,618.00 191.42
- 2 -
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.
Petitioner denies that she is liable for income tax or additions
to tax on her earnings as a salaried employee in private
industry.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner resided in Sugar Land, Texas, at the time that
her petition was filed. Prior to and during the years in issue,
petitioner was married to Kenneth E. Rogers. Prior to and during
the years in issue, petitioner was employed by various private
employers as a systems analyst. She received income from her
employment in the amounts of $97,156 in 1994, $85,386 in 1995,
$87,968 in 1996, and a total of $117,095 (from two employers) in
1997. During the years in issue, petitioner also received other
income from dividends, interest, and proceeds from the sale of
stock.
Prior to 1994, petitioner filed Federal income tax returns.
For 1994, she submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a
Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, that reported her
income for that year, checked her status as “married filing
separate return”, and attached a statement disclaiming any tax
liability for 1994 and asserting that she “did not engage in any
licensed occupation or activity subject to an excise tax”.
Petitioner did not file an income tax return for 1995, 1996, or
- 3 -
1997. Her employers withheld Federal income tax from
petitioner’s earnings for 1995, 1996, and 1997. Petitioner did
not make any estimated tax payments for 1996 or 1997.
OPINION
Petitioner has not presented any evidence or made any
argument that she did not receive the income determined in
respondent’s notice of deficiency or that she is entitled to
deductions not allowed by respondent. Petitioner, like many
before her, has presented a “hodgepodge of unsupported
assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish”.
Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984). As
the Court of Appeals stated in Crain, “We perceive no need to
refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation
of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have
some colorable merit.” Id. at 1417. We briefly describe those
contentions that are central to her position.
Validity of the Notice
Petitioner contends that the notice of deficiency was not
sufficient because it failed to identify the Code sections under
which respondent’s determination was made. Section 7522 sets
forth requirements as to the contents of notices, including a
statutory notice of deficiency under section 6212. Section
7522(a) provides that the notice “shall describe the basis for,
and identify the amounts (if any) of, the tax due, interest,
- 4 -
additional amounts, additions to tax, and assessable penalties
included in such notice. An inadequate description under the
preceding sentence shall not invalidate such notice.” There is
no requirement that legal citations be included in the statutory
notice mailed to petitioner. See Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.
646, 655-656 (1982). The notice in this case set out the
specific items of unreported income received by petitioner and
the other amounts required under section 7522. The notice sent
to petitioner is sufficient for all relevant purposes of this
case.
Petitioner also argues that she was entitled to a hearing
with the IRS Appeals Division before the notice of deficiency was
sent. There is no such requirement, and it is apparent, based on
petitioner’s arguments, that any such hearing would have been
futile. Similarly, we reject her request that the case be
“remanded” to the IRS for further consideration of her arguments.
Petitioner’s Income Tax Liability
Petitioner makes a convoluted argument that subjecting her
to the same rate of taxes as Federal employees constitutes
impermissible “disparate tax treatment.” Petitioner cites a
variety of Code sections and regulatory materials to show that
public employees receive benefits from the Federal Government
that are not available to her as an employee of private industry.
She argues:
- 5 -
Whether due to favored treatment of the Federal
employee, or officer in the statutes under Title 5
U.S.C. et seq., there exist a great legal disparity in
the economic employment benefits, privileges, or
protections directly received from the Federal
Government by the Federal employee, or officer, and
what the petitioner directly receives from the Federal
Government * * *.
As a result, she argues, application of the same rates of Federal
income tax to her as are applied to Federal employees is
unconstitutional. She asserts that taxes imposed on her and used
to pay benefits above and beyond wages to Federal employees are
improper takings of her income for a “private purpose” within the
meaning of various cases dealing with disparate treatment by
Federal statutes or agencies.
Petitioner’s argument is erroneous in several respects.
First, provision of benefits to a Federal employee in relation to
his or her employment is an expenditure of funds for a public
purpose, not the private purpose of the employee. Second, tax
rates are not applied to employees by classification, whether
public or private, but to levels and categories of income.
Third, even if a distinction had been made between employees paid
with Federal funds and employees paid with private funds, such
classifications, having a rational basis, do not violate the
constitutional rights of taxpayers. See, e.g., Sjoroos v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 971, 975 (1983).
- 6 -
Estimated Tax Requirement
Petitioner also contends that there is no “enabling
legislation” requiring payment of estimated taxes since the
repeal of former section 6015 in 1984. Former section 6015,
relating to declarations of estimated income tax by individuals,
was repealed by section 412 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
(DEFRA), Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 792. That repeal was
contemporaneous with the amendment of section 6654 in DEFRA
section 411. DEFRA sections 411 and 412, 98 Stat. 788, 792, were
among the simplification provisions effectuated by consolidating
into section 6654 all rules relating to payments of estimated
tax.
Sections 6654(c) and (d), as in effect for the years in
issue, set forth the number of required installments and the
amount of required installments of estimated tax due from
individuals. Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for
failure to make the required payments. The addition to tax
determined by respondent by reason of petitioner’s failure to
make the estimated tax payments is mandatory, with exceptions not
applicable in this case. See, e.g., Grosshandler v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21 (1980).
Section 6651(a)
Finally, petitioner contends that her attempts to secure
explanations from the IRS about her arguments were reasonable
- 7 -
cause for her failure to file returns for the years in issue.
They were not. Petitioner apparently did not consult with an
attorney or accountant or any competent tax professional before
discontinuing her prior history of filing tax returns. She cites
innumerable cases out of context, while ignoring the innumerable
cases upholding the validity of the Federal income tax and
rejecting arguments by individuals that they are not required to
file Federal income tax returns and pay Federal income taxes.
Her failure to file returns for the years in issue was not due to
reasonable cause. She is liable for the addition to tax under
section 6651(a) as determined by respondent.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.