T.C. Memo. 2003-202
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JAMES R. CICIORA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 10100-02. Filed July 10, 2003.
James R. Ciciora, pro se.
J. Craig Young, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DINAN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $1,665 for the
taxable year 1999. Respondent, by an amendment to answer to
amended petition, seeks an increased deficiency totaling $8,950.
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all
- 2 -
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether the income
petitioner earned during 1999 is subject to Federal income
taxation; and (2) whether the deficiency determined in the
statutory notice of deficiency may be increased. Petitioner
resided in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on the date the petition
was filed in this case.
For taxable year 1999, petitioner submitted to the Internal
Revenue Service a Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.
On this form, petitioner entered zeroes on the lines provided for
the amounts of income, deductions, and taxes due, but he claimed
an overpayment of $3,011 from withholding on certain wages he
earned. Attached to this form were four Forms W-2, Wage and Tax
Statement, reflecting total taxable wages of $32,296. There also
was attached one Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions,
Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance
Contracts, etc. This form reflected a taxable distribution of
$13,123. None of this income was reflected on the face of the
Form 1040A. Respondent asserts that petitioner also received--in
addition to the amounts reflected on the attachments to the Form
1040A--wage income of $1,000 and self-employment income totaling
$3,156. Taking into account each of these items of income,
- 3 -
respondent calculates petitioner’s total tax liability as follows:
Wage and pension income $46,419
Self-employment income 3,156
Standard deduction (4,300)
Personal exemption deduction (2,750)
Self-employment income tax deduction (223)
Taxable income 42,302
Income tax 8,504
Self-employment income tax 446
Total tax liability 8,950
Petitioner admits that he received all of the income underlying
this calculation.
In petitioner’s pleadings and at trial, petitioner makes
numerous assertions based upon frivolous arguments which do
little more than recite law which is irrelevant, taken completely
out of context, or otherwise misapplied. “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.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th
Cir. 1984). Furthermore, petitioner’s arguments are essentially
political in nature. This Court is not the proper place for
these arguments. The function of this Court is to accurately and
justly apply the laws as they were written by Congress.
After reviewing respondent’s calculation of petitioner’s tax
liability, detailed above, we conclude that this calculation has
been made in accordance with the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code, and that the amounts of income tax and self-
- 4 -
employment income tax are the correct amounts imposed by section
1 and section 1401, respectively, on this income.
Respondent seeks to increase the deficiency above which was
determined in the notice of deficiency. Respondent bears the
burden of proof with respect to an increased deficiency. Rule
142(a). However, due to petitioner’s admissions concerning his
receipt of the income, there are no factual issues remaining with
respect to which respondent must meet this burden.
Respondent explains the increased deficiency as follows:
Prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency, respondent
assessed taxes of $7,398 against petitioner for 1999. This
assessment was made in the form of an assessment due to a
“mathematical or clerical error” under the authority of section
6213(b)(1). The amount of the assessment was based upon the
amounts of income shown on the Forms W-2 and Form 1099-R attached
to petitioner’s Form 1040A. After this assessment, respondent
issued petitioner the notice of deficiency underlying this case,
with respect to the additional income which had not been
reflected in the initial assessment. The total of the amounts of
the initial assessment, $7,398, and the deficiency in the notice,
$1,665, is $9,063. The total deficiency now sought by respondent
is $8,950. The discrepancy results from respondent’s erroneous
classification of $1,000 of income as self-employment income in
the notice of deficiency. This error, which reduces the
- 5 -
deficiency reflected in the notice from $1,665 to $1,552, has
been corrected in the final calculation detailed above.
Respondent now asserts that the initial $7,398 assessment should
be abated and seeks to have the amounts of income reflected in
the initial assessment included in the redetermination of
petitioner’s deficiency.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, in that this
Court possesses only the adjudicatory powers that Congress has
conferred upon it. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527 (1985).
As is relevant to the present case, the adjudicatory power of
this Court encompasses the redetermination of deficiencies
determined in statutory notices of deficiency. Sec. 6214(a). A
deficiency is defined generally as follows:
SEC. 6211(a). In General.--For purposes of this title
* * * the term “deficiency” means the amount by which the
tax imposed * * * exceeds * * * --
(1) the sum of
(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer
upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer
and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer
thereon, plus
(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected
without assessment) as a deficiency * * *
The amount of a deficiency is determined without regard to the
amount of taxes withheld on a taxpayer’s income. Sec. 6211(a),
(b)(1). However, the amount of withheld taxes and any other
- 6 -
payments made by a taxpayer are taken into account in the Court’s
determination of any overpayment under section 6512(b).
A deficiency of income tax generally must be assessed
pursuant to the deficiency procedures prescribed under sections
6211 through 6215. However, where a “mathematical or clerical
error” appears on a return, upon proper notification to the
taxpayer the amount of tax due which results from such an error
may be assessed summarily. Sec. 6213(b)(1). The normal
deficiency procedures must be followed for an assessment of this
amount where a taxpayer requests an abatement of the assessment
within the prescribed period of time. Sec. 6213(b)(2)(A).
Generally, where an amount is assessed as being due to a
mathematical or clerical error under section 6213(b)(1), such
amount is subtracted from a taxpayer’s correct total tax
liability in the calculation of the amount of a deficiency under
section 6211(a). Sec. 6211(a)(1)(B); Heasley v. Commissioner, 45
T.C. 448, 458 (1966). Nevertheless, where an amount has been
assessed under section 6213(b)(1), but is abated after the
taxpayer petitions this Court with respect to a deficiency for
the same taxable year, this Court may redetermine a deficiency
which includes the amount of the abated assessment. Burford v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-466, affd. without published
opinion 813 F.2d 400 (4th Cir. 1986). This Court’s jurisdiction
to redetermine a deficiency entails a redetermination of the
- 7 -
correct amount of the deficiency as of the date a decision is
entered by the Court; the entire deficiency need not have existed
at the time the notice of deficiency was mailed. Id. Thus, a
computation under Rule 155 will be necessary in this case to
calculate the correct amount of the remaining deficiency with
respect to petitioner’s overall tax liability of $8,950, taking
into account any abatement by respondent. If an abatement has
not been made by respondent with respect to the prior assessment
of $7,398, however, the amount of the deficiency cannot exceed
petitioner’s total tax liability less the amount of this
assessment. Sec. 6211(a)(1)(B); Heasley v. Commissioner, supra.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.