T.C. Memo. 2002-4
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
RICHARD E. MARKS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 4218-00. Filed January 8, 2002.
Richard E. Marks, pro se.
Andrew J. Wyman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DINAN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $3,240, an
addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $162, and an
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $648, for the
taxable year 1996. Unless otherwise indicated, section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
- 2 -
year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules
of Practice and Procedure.
Petitioner resided in Morro Bay, California, on the date the
petition was filed in this case.
Petitioner untimely filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual
Income Tax Return, on October 20, 1997, for taxable year 1996.
He reported $15,043 in business income, but did not include with
the form a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business. He claimed
no deductions, but stated on the return that he had zero taxable
income. Attached to his return was a “Tax Analysis Statement” in
which he made numerous arguments, primarily to the effect that
there is no law causing him to be liable for Federal income
taxes.
Respondent issued petitioner a statutory notice of
deficiency, calculating his tax liability based upon his reported
income as follows:
Business income $15,043
Standard deduction (4,000)
Personal exemption deduction (2,550)
Self-employment tax deduction (1,063)
Taxable income 7,430
Income tax 1,114
Self-employment income tax 2,126
Total tax liability (deficiency) 3,240
Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for the
addition to tax and penalty noted above.
- 3 -
Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in which he
provided the following statement as his disagreement with
respondent’s determinations in the notice of deficiency:
(1) The District Director issued a Statutory Notice of
Deficiency claiming petitioner had a tax liability without
there being a statutorily procedural correct lawful tax
assessment. (2) Attached to the Notice of Deficiency, IRS
Form 4549A, income tax examination changes, line 11 states,
“Total Corrected Tax Liability.” Respondent has failed to
provide the petitioners with the internal revenue code
section or regulation that was used to calculate this total
corrected tax liability. (3) The respondent has failed to
provide the petitioners with certified assessment
information as per Internal Revenue Regulation 301.6203-1.
(4) Respondent has failed to identify the individual who
will certify to the tax adjustments the determination was
based on. Therefore, the deficiency is unenforceable as the
determination was based on unfounded evidence. (5) There
can be no meaningful administrative hearing until respondent
provides petitioner with the above requested information,
and until that time, petitioner will disagree with all of
the adjustments.
The language of the petition is very similar to the language of
the petitions in other cases before this Court in which
petitioner was involved. Petitioner appeared before the Court in
his capacity as officer of the corporate trustee of six trusts in
six separate docketed cases. In our opinion in those cases, Funk
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-169, we found that the petitions
in those cases failed to comply with Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Rule
34(b)(4) requires that the petition set forth “Clear and concise
assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges
to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination
of the deficiency or liability.” Rule 34(b)(5) requires that the
- 4 -
petition set forth “Clear and concise lettered statements of the
facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error”. We
dismissed each of the cases involved in Funk v. Commissioner,
supra, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. In addition, we required each of the trusts to pay a
section 6673(a)(1) penalty in the amount of $1,000. Section
6673(a)(1) allows this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the
United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 where it appears
to the Court either that a taxpayer has instituted or maintained
a proceeding before the Court primarily for delay, or that the
taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous or
groundless.
In the present case, prior to trial petitioner moved to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and at trial he
moved for summary judgment. Both of these motions contained
frivolous arguments and were denied. Petitioner provided no
factual evidence at trial, instead relying upon a reiteration of
the frivolous arguments contained in the petition, motions, and
other correspondence to the Court. These frivolous arguments do
little more than recite code sections and case law which are
irrelevant, taken completely out of context, or are otherwise
misapplied. In this case, as in Funk v. Commissioner, supra, “We
perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning
and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that
- 5 -
these arguments have some colorable merit.” Id. (quoting Crain
v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. an Order of
this Court).
Petitioner has again failed to comply with Rule 34(b)(4) and
(5) by failing to set forth in his petition any justiciable claim
or facts related thereto. Neither were any such claims or facts
raised or alleged at trial or at any other time in this
proceeding. Petitioner introduced not one iota of credible
evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to
ascertaining the tax liability in issue.1 Furthermore, it is
clear that petitioner has brought this frivolous case solely for
purposes of delay and for the advancement of his personal views.
We will therefore dismiss this case and enter a decision against
petitioner under Rule 123(b). Rule 123(b) provides:
For failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute
or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court
or for other cause which the Court deems sufficient,
the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a
decision against the petitioner. The Court may, for
similar reasons, decide against any party any issue as
to which such party has the burden of proof, and such
decision shall be treated as a dismissal for purposes
of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Rule.
1
Because petitioner failed to introduce any credible
evidence, he failed to meet the requirements of sec. 7491(a), as
amended, so as to place the burden of proof on respondent with
respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining liability
for the tax deficiency in issue. As to the addition to tax and
accuracy-related penalty, we find that respondent has satisfied
his burden of production under sec. 7491(c) because the record
shows that petitioner’s return was filed late. Higbee v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438 (2001).
- 6 -
In addition, we exercise our discretion under section 6673(a)(1)
and require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States in
the amount of $3,000.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued, and a decision will be
entered for respondent.