T.C. Memo. 2005-154
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ALAN D. STANG, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Nos. 6371-03, 19150-03. Filed June 27, 2005.
R determined deficiencies and additions to tax for
P’s 1999, 2000, and 2001 taxable years.
Held: P received unreported income in the form of
wages and nonemployee compensation during 1999, 2000,
and 2001, upon which he is liable for Federal income
taxes.
Held, further, P is liable for self-employment
taxes pursuant to sec. 1401, I.R.C., on income earned
in the form of nonemployee compensation during 2000 and
2001.
Held, further, P is liable for the sec.
6651(a)(1), I.R.C., addition to tax for failure timely
to file income tax returns for each of the years in
issue.
Held, further, P is liable for the sec. 6654,
I.R.C., addition to tax for failure to pay estimated
tax for the years 1999 through 2001.
- 2 -
Held, further, a penalty under sec. 6673, I.R.C.,
is due from P and is awarded to the United States in
the amount of $5,000
Alan D. Stang, pro se.
Stephen S. Ash, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WHERRY, Judge: Respondent determined the following
deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner’s
Federal income taxes for the taxable years 1999 through 2001:1
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
1999 $3,596 $899.00 $174.01
2000 15,137 3,784.25 808.54
2001 7,501 1,875.25 299.77
The issues for decision in these consolidated cases are:
1) Whether petitioner received unreported income in the form
of wages and nonemployee compensation from The Gem City
Engineering Company (GCE) during 1999, 2000, and 2001, upon which
he is liable for Federal income taxes;
(2) whether petitioner is liable for self-employment taxes
pursuant to section 1401 on income earned in the form of
nonemployee compensation during 2000 and 2001;
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
(3) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1)
addition to tax for failure timely to file income tax returns for
the taxable years 1999 through 2001;
(4) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6654
addition to tax for 1999, 2000, and 2001 on account of failure to
pay estimated income taxes; and
(5) whether the Court should impose a penalty under section
6673.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been deemed stipulated pursuant to
Rule 91(f). The deemed stipulations, with accompanying exhibits,
are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the
petition was filed in these cases, petitioner resided in Arizona.
Petitioner was hired by GCE, a firm providing engineering
services, with a starting date of January 8, 1996. Petitioner
had a background in electronics and was employed as a field
service technician. In conjunction with his employment,
petitioner on January 4, 1996, signed a Form W-4, Employee’s
Withholding Allowance Certificate, claiming he was exempt from
Federal income tax withholding requirements.
Respondent’s administrative file further reflects that
petitioner subsequently, in January of 1997, executed a statement
asserting that he was a sovereign citizen of Arizona; a Form W-8,
Certificate of Foreign Status; another Form W-4 claiming
- 4 -
exemption from Federal income tax withholding; a document
entitled “AFFIDAVIT OF CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE”; and a document
entitled “AFFIDAVIT OF CLAIMS FOR EXEMPTION AND EXCLUSION FROM
GROSS INCOME OF REMUNERATION, WAGES AND WITHHOLDING”. The
affidavits enumerated a litany of typical tax-protester
assertions, including that the Internal Revenue Code was Federal
legislation inapplicable to him as a citizen of one of the 50
States and therefore not within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, that wages and remuneration for labor were
property not subject to indirect taxation, and that the income
tax was voluntary.
During 1999, petitioner received $31,0272 in wages from GCE,
from which no Federal income tax was withheld. GCE issued to
petitioner and filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a
Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, reflecting these wages. During
2000, petitioner received total compensation of $60,930 from GCE,
comprising $32,054 in wages for which a Form W-2 was issued and
$28,876 in nonemployee compensation for which a Form 1099-MISC,
Miscellaneous Income, was issued.3 No Federal income tax was
2
For consistency with the notices of deficiency and the
deemed stipulation of facts, the monetary amounts of the
compensation received by petitioner have been rounded to the
nearest dollar.
3
It appears from the record that, on or about June 5, 2000,
GCE treated petitioner’s employment status as having changed from
that of an employee to that of an independent contractor.
- 5 -
withheld from these amounts. Similarly, during 2001, petitioner
received $31,779 in nonemployee compensation from GCE for which a
Form 1099-MISC was issued and from which no Federal income tax
was withheld.
Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for the
years 1999, 2000, and 2001. On January 22, 2003, respondent
issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency with respect to 1999,
and on August 8, 2003, respondent likewise issued to petitioner a
separate notice of deficiency for each of the years 2000 and
2001. Therein respondent determined the deficiencies and
additions to tax referenced above. The deficiencies were based
solely on the compensation paid to petitioner by GCE.
Petitioner’s petitions disputing these determinations,
having been postmarked timely, were filed with the Court on
April 28, 2003, as to 1999, and on November 10, 2003, as to 2000
and 2001. The petitions are substantially identical, each
asserting that petitioner “did not receive any taxable income
from any taxable source” during the subject years and that, even
if income can be attributed to him, he “would still be entitled
to the deductions, allowances and credits that the examining
Revenue Officer failed to even request from the Petitioner.”
Petitioner then prays that the Court dismiss the notices of
- 6 -
deficiency, determine that there is a zero deficiency for each
year, and award petitioner costs and fees.4
The case for 1999 was initially set for trial at the Court’s
March 1, 2004, session in Phoenix, Arizona. Prior to the
session, the parties on January 13, 2004, held a conference
pursuant to Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974).
At the conference, counsel for respondent urged petitioner to
abandon his positions regarding nonliability for Federal income
tax and provided him with copies of cases rejecting such
arguments. Petitioner responded to subsequent attempts by
respondent to prepare a stipulation of facts with objections on
Fifth Amendment grounds.
At the call of the calendar in Phoenix on March 1, 2004,
petitioner filed a motion to continue describing a recent heart-
related medical condition. Counsel for respondent voiced
concerns stemming from the arguments and Fifth Amendment
assertions advanced by petitioner. Counsel further informed the
Court that he had consulted with the IRS Criminal Investigation
Division and had ascertained that petitioner was not under
criminal investigation. The Court granted petitioner’s motion
but warned petitioner that “your position is somewhat extreme”
4
The Court notes that to the extent that the petitions seek
reasonable administrative and/or litigation costs pursuant to
sec. 7430, any such claims are premature and will not be further
addressed. See Rule 231.
- 7 -
and that the Court would entertain any motions either side wished
to make, including “a motion under Rule 91(f) to force
stipulation”. The two cases were later consolidated and
calendared for trial at the Court’s October 18, 2004, session in
Phoenix.
On August 10, 2004, respondent sent to petitioner a letter
scheduling a second pretrial conference pursuant to Branerton
Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, for August 18, 2004.5 Respondent
also cautioned petitioner to review and consider the information
he had previously been provided regarding his legal arguments and
Fifth Amendment assertions. Petitioner responded with a letter
dated August 18, 2004, stating that his health problems prevented
a face-to-face meeting and that respondent was in error with
regard to the validity of petitioner’s Fifth Amendment
objections. Petitioner indicated that he would continue to
assert the Fifth Amendment in response to proposed stipulations
of fact and that if respondent should seek an order to show cause
under Rule 91(f), petitioner would request appropriate sanctions
for unnecessarily multiplying the litigation.
On August 19, 2004, respondent sent to petitioner a letter
enclosing a proposed stipulation of facts. This letter was
5
The Court notes that respondent’s motion to impose a sec.
6673 penalty refers, in an apparent typographical error, to this
letter as having been sent on Aug. 19, 2004. The copy of the
letter itself contained in the record is dated Aug. 10, 2004.
- 8 -
eventually followed on September 3, 2004, with the filing by
respondent of a motion under Rule 91(f) for an order to show
cause why proposed facts in evidence should not be accepted as
established. Therein respondent also updated the Court that as
of the date of the motion, no criminal investigation of
petitioner was being pursued. The Court granted respondent’s
motion and on September 7, 2004, issued to petitioner an order to
show cause in writing on or before September 27, 2004, why the
matters set forth in respondent’s proposed stipulation of facts
and accompanying exhibits should not be accepted as established.
On October 4, 2004, the Court received from petitioner a
response, postmarked timely, to the order to show cause. The
response reflected that petitioner objected to each stipulation,
other than the perfunctory statements identifying the notices of
deficiency and petitioner’s address, on grounds of the Fifth
Amendment. Petitioner also made the further objection that
copies of checks from GCE payable to petitioner were hearsay and
secondary evidence. In advocating the propriety of his Fifth
Amendment stance, petitioner placed particular reliance on United
States v. Nipper, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (N.D. Okla. 2002). After
reviewing petitioner’s submissions, the Court on October 6, 2004,
issued an order making absolute the order to show cause and
deeming established for purposes of these cases the matters set
- 9 -
forth in the proposed stipulation of facts and accompanying
exhibits.
Prior to trial, on October 1, 2004, respondent served on
petitioner a copy of respondent’s pretrial memorandum. The
memorandum discussed issues raised in the notices of deficiency
and additionally, among other things, noted an intention on the
part of respondent to request imposition of a penalty under
section 6673 and potentially to address certain evidentiary
concerns through presentation of a declaration at trial pursuant
to rules 803(6) and 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The cases were tried on October 20, 2004. At the outset of
the proceedings, counsel for respondent sought to move into
evidence the exhibits accompanying the deemed stipulation of
facts. Petitioner repeated his Fifth Amendment and hearsay
objections. The Court overruled these objections and admitted
the exhibits, cautioning petitioner that frivolous arguments made
for purposes of delay could result in the imposition of
additional penalties. Petitioner declined to offer any testimony
or evidence, stating: “I have no witnesses. I have no
documents. And basically as I’ve stated, I believe that the
Internal Revenue Service has the initial burden of proof. And
they haven’t met that so I may remain silent until they have met
that.”
- 10 -
Counsel for respondent then sought to enter additional
corroborative evidence in support of respondent’s position.
Respondent first offered the declaration of Missy Wittman, the
human resources and payroll manager for GCE, with attached
documents relating to petitioner’s employment and pay, under
rules 803(6) and 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Respondent indicated that the materials had been provided to
petitioner prior to trial, and petitioner corroborated that he
had been given the documents “two weeks ago”. Petitioner,
however, objected to their admission, complaining that the timing
had not permitted him a fair opportunity to challenge the
materials and that various documents constituted hearsay, were
incomplete, and were secondary evidence. The Court overruled the
objection and admitted the exhibit.
Respondent next sought to enter under rule 902(1) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence a Certificate of Official Record,
Information Returns Processing File (IRP) On-Line Transcript, for
petitioner’s taxable years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The document
was an original signed and under seal. Petitioner objected that
the document was created from hearsay, but the Court again
overruled the objection.
Respondent then called to the stand Wayne Johnson, a revenue
agent, who testified with regard to maintenance of computer
records and transcripts within the IRS. On the basis of this
- 11 -
testimony, respondent offered computer transcripts of account for
petitioner’s 1998 through 2001 years under rule 803(6) or (8) of
the Federal Rules of Evidence.6 Petitioner once more objected
that the transcripts were hearsay and were created from hearsay,
but these complaints were overruled and the exhibit was received
into evidence.
Following the trial, respondent on October 22, 2004, filed a
motion to impose a penalty under section 6673. Each party also
filed a posttrial brief.
OPINION
I. Contentions of the Parties
On brief, petitioner’s essential premise is that respondent
bears the burden of proving receipt of unreported income, and
respondent failed to meet that burden here. Petitioner argues
that because the business records accompanying the declaration of
GCE’s human resources and payroll manager are inadmissible, no
evidence supports the determinations made in the notices of
deficiency. Specifically, petitioner contends that these
materials are inadmissible because: (1) The documents were
untimely provided under rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence; (2) the records are incomplete; and (3) the records are
6
Although the transcript indicates that counsel for
respondent inadvertently referred to rule “802(6) or (8)”, it is
clear that rule 803(6) or (8) of Federal Rules of Evidence was
intended.
- 12 -
secondary evidence. He also makes a brief reference to Rule
143(b) as a basis for excluding the declaration of Ms. Wittman.
In contrast, it is respondent’s position that the record in
these cases establishes petitioner’s receipt of unreported income
from GCE and consequent liability for income taxes, self-
employment taxes, and additions to tax thereon. For the reasons
detailed below, the Court agrees with respondent.
II. Fifth Amendment
As previously indicated, certain of the facts for purposes
of these cases were deemed stipulated pursuant to Rule 91(f).
The Court determined petitioner’s objections to the proposed
stipulations of fact, premised principally on the Fifth
Amendment, to be without merit. Because petitioner reiterated at
trial that he believed such objections were “a proper application
of the Fifth Amendment rights”, a few preliminary remarks on this
issue are in order.
In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court: “It is well
established that the [Fifth Amendment] privilege protects against
real dangers, not remote and speculative possibilities.”
Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Comm. of Investigation, 406 U.S.
472, 478 (1972); see also McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234,
1236 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A valid Fifth Amendment objection may be
raised only to questions which present a real and appreciable
- 13 -
danger of self-incrimination.” (internal quotations omitted)),
affg. 76 T.C. 1027 (1981).
Having reviewed relevant caselaw on the matter, the Court is
satisfied that this litigation is not materially distinguishable
from cases such as Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102,
affd. 63 Fed. Appx. 375 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2002-95, affd. 61 Fed. Appx. 471 (9th Cir. 2003); and
Ruocco v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-91, affd. 346 F.3d 223
(1st Cir. 2003). In the foregoing cases, all involving
contentions nearly identical to those raised here, the Court
rejected the taxpayers’ Fifth Amendment arguments as follows:
The phrase that comes readily to mind was first used by
the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sullivan,
274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927), to wit, a taxpayer may not
“draw a conjurer’s circle around the whole matter” of
his or her tax liability. * * * In a civil tax case,
the taxpayer must accept the consequences of asserting
the Fifth Amendment and cannot avoid the burden of
proof by claiming the privilege and attempting to
convert “the shield * * * which it was intended to be
into a sword”. United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S.
752, 758 (1983) * * * [Wheelis v. Commissioner, supra.]
See also Lee v. Commissioner, supra; Ruocco v. Commissioner,
supra.
In contrast, cases relied upon by petitioner, in particular
United States v. Nipper, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (N.D. Okla. 2002),
are distinguishable. The court in that case reiterated that the
constitutional standard required a “substantial and real” risk of
incrimination. Id. at 1260. The court, noting that the
- 14 -
Government had already alleged that Mr. Nipper engaged in
fraudulent conveyances to conceal income and assets, further
concluded as a factual matter that Mr. Nipper had shown more than
“just a fanciful possibility of prosecution”. Id. at 1262.
Here, respondent has repeatedly affirmed that no criminal
investigation is pending with respect to petitioner and has never
asserted fraud on petitioner’s part. The Court remains convinced
that petitioner has established no real and reasonable fear of
incrimination and that Rule 91(f) was properly applied
notwithstanding his Fifth Amendment objections.
III. Unreported Income
The Internal Revenue Code imposes a Federal tax on the
taxable income of every individual. Sec. 1. Section 61(a)
defines gross income for purposes of calculating taxable income
as “all income from whatever source derived”. This broad
definition encompasses “Compensation for services, including
fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items”. Sec.
61(a)(1); see also sec. 1.61-2(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Respondent has determined that petitioner received unreported
wages and nonemployee compensation from GCE.
As a general rule, the Commmissioner’s determinations are
presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving
error therein. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111,
115 (1933). Although section 7491(a) may shift the burden to the
- 15 -
Commissioner with respect to factual issues where the taxpayer
introduces credible evidence, the provision operates only where
the taxpayer establishes that he or she has complied with all
substantiation requirements, has maintained all required records,
and has cooperated with reasonable requests for witnesses,
information, documents, meetings, and interviews. Here, as
indicated above, petitioner introduced no evidence and failed to
cooperate in the stipulation process or trial preparation.
Section 7491(a) therefore effects no shift of burden in the
instant cases.
However, two additional limitations on the general rule bear
upon the case at bar. First, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, to which appeal in the instant case would normally lie,
has indicated that before the presumption of correctness will
attach in an unreported income case, the determination must be
supported by at least a “minimal” factual predicate or foundation
of substantive evidence linking the taxpayer to income-generating
activity or to the receipt of funds. Palmer v. United States,
116 F.3d 1309, 1312-1313 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Rapp v.
Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir. 1985); Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 361 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C.
672 (1977); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 689 (1989).
Second, section 6201(d) states:
SEC. 6201(d). Required Reasonable Verification of
Information Returns.--In any court proceeding, if a
- 16 -
taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to
any item of income reported on an information return
filed with the Secretary under subpart B or C of part
III of subchapter A of chapter 61 by a third party and
the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary
(including providing, within a reasonable period of
time, access to and inspection of all witnesses,
information, and documents within the control of the
taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary), the
Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable
and probative information concerning such deficiency in
addition to such information return.
Here, respondent initially, in determining the disputed
deficiencies, relied upon third-party information returns.
Respondent also introduced at trial, through the declaration of
Ms. Wittman, copies of the information returns and of checks and
invoices showing payment by GCE to petitioner. Additional copies
of checks from GCE payable to petitioner for 1999 had been deemed
stipulated pursuant to Rule 91(f). Petitioner makes various
arguments as to why these materials are inadmissible and thus
insufficient to satisfy any pertinent burden born by respondent.
A. Rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Petitioner alleges that the declaration and accompanying
documents are inadmissible as self-authenticating business
records under rules 902(11) and 803(6) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence (hereinafter individual rules generally abbreviated in
text Fed. R. Evid. 902, Fed. R. Evid. 803, etc.). Specifically,
petitioner maintains that the materials were untimely provided
for purposes of the notice requirement contained in Fed. R. Evid.
902(11). Fed. R. Evid. 902 enumerates forms of documentary
- 17 -
evidence as to which extrinsic evidence of authenticity is not a
precondition to admissibility, including the following:
(11) Certified Domestic Records of Regularly
Conducted Activity.--The original or a duplicate of a
domestic record of regularly conducted activity that
would be admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by
a written declaration of its custodian or other
qualified person, in a manner complying with any Act of
Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court
pursuant to statutory authority, certifying that the
record--
(A) was made at or near the time of the
occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from
information transmitted by, a person with
knowledge of those matters;
(B) was kept in the course of the regularly
conducted activity; and
(C) was made by the regularly conducted
activity as a regular practice.
A party intending to offer a record into evidence under
this paragraph must provide written notice of that
intention to all adverse parties, and must make the
record and declaration available for inspection
sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to
provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to
challenge them.
The Advisory Committee Notes accompanying the 2000 Amendments to
the Federal Rules of Evidence, which added paragraphs (11) and
(12) to Fed. R. Evid. 902, state: “The notice requirement in
Rules 902(11) and (12) is intended to give the opponent of the
evidence a full opportunity to test the adequacy of the
foundation set forth in the declaration.”
Petitioner admits that the disputed declaration evidence was
provided “a couple of weeks before calendar” but argues that he
- 18 -
was nevertheless deprived of a fair opportunity to challenge the
underlying third-party records. He submits that the meaning of a
fair opportunity must be interpreted in light of the procedural
rules governing a particular proceeding, which in these cases
would be the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. He
further maintains that to be afforded an adequate opportunity to
challenge the evidence, he would need to have been in receipt of
the declaration with sufficient time under our Rules to conduct
discovery, possibly a deposition, with respect thereto.
Petitioner notes for example that Rule 70(a)(2) requires all
discovery to be completed no later than 45 days prior to the call
of the calendar.
The situation before the Court here is indistinguishable on
this point from those addressed in Rodriguez v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2005-12, and Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-124.7 In postures nearly identical to that in the case at
bar, the taxpayers in those case relied, inter alia, upon the
notice requirement of Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) as a basis for
exclusion of proffered declarations and business records (i.e.,
Forms W-2, Forms 1099, employee time reports, payroll records,
paychecks, etc.). Rodriguez v. Commissioner, supra; Spurlock v.
Commissioner, supra. The Court was unpersuaded by their
7
See also Clough v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 183, 188-191
(2002).
- 19 -
arguments for reasons that ring equally true here. See Rodriguez
v. Commissioner, supra; Spurlock v. Commissioner, supra.
For instance, in Spurlock v. Commissioner, supra, the
Commissioner had indicated possible use of the declarations in a
trial memorandum provided a little more than 2 weeks before trial
and had provided the affidavits and records to the taxpayer 2 and
3 days before trial. Id. We concluded in those circumstances
that the Commissioner had met the notice requirement of Fed. R.
Evid. 902(11), stating: “Petitioner was adequately apprised of
this information in advance of trial. Petitioner had sufficient
time to contact the witnesses named in respondent’s trial
memorandum, and she could have called those witnesses to testify
at trial.” Id.
The same observation applies to the instant litigation.
Petitioner’s complaints regarding the various time limits
applicable to discovery provisions fail to take into account the
straightforward expedient of calling Ms. Wittman as a witness.
The Court is satisfied that admission into evidence of the
declaration of Ms. Wittman and the attached business records did
not run afoul of the notice requirement of Fed. R. Evid. 902(11).
B. Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Petitioner further argues that even if the declaration was
timely and provided him with a fair opportunity to challenge the
underlying documents, the materials are nonetheless inadmissible
- 20 -
under the business records exception to hearsay rule. His
objection is that the records are “incomplete”; i.e., “If they
were in fact prepared in the normal course of business a copy of
the transmittal document would have also been included.”
Petitioner refers to the Forms W-3, Transmittal of Wage and Tax
Statements, and Forms 1096, Annual Summary and Transmittal of
U.S. Information Returns, that entities transmitting Forms W-2 to
the Social Security Administration and Forms 1099 to the IRS,
respectively, are required to file. These transmittal documents
contain a jurat clause with a declaration under penalties of
perjury that the accompanying materials are true, correct, and
complete.
Fed. R. Evid. 803 provides, in relevant part:
RULE 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of
Declarant Immaterial
The following are not excluded by the hearsay
rule, even though the declarant is available as a
witness:
* * * * * * *
(6) Records of regularly conducted activity.-
-A memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation, in any form, of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or
near the time by, or from information transmitted
by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course
of a regularly conducted business activity, and if
it was the regular practice of that business
activity to make the memorandum, report, record or
data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of
the custodian or other qualified witness, or by
certification that complies with Rule 902(11),
Rule 902(12), or a statute permitting
- 21 -
certification, unless the source of information or
the method or circumstances of preparation
indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term
“business” as used in this paragraph includes
business, institution, association, profession,
occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or
not conducted for profit.
Similar to petitioner here, the taxpayer in Spurlock v.
Commissioner, supra, complained that failure to produce Forms W-3
and 1096, among other things, rendered the declarations in that
case and records introduced thereunder inherently untrustworthy
and unreliable. The Court dismissed that contention summarily.
Id. Likewise, here suffice it to say that Forms W-2 and 1099 do
not cease to be complete and distinct records prepared in the
ordinary course of business merely because additional business
records, such as Forms W-3 and 1096, are not proffered as
evidence. See also Major v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-141.
C. Rules 1002 and 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Petitioner also alleges that the Forms W-2 and 1099 are
secondary evidence inadmissible without proper foundation under
Fed. R. Evid. 1002 and 1004. He goes on to state: “Without that
foundation by the Respondent showing why the paychecks themselves
were not used by the Respondent to prove the actual receipt of
the income or findings by this Court that the original paychecks
were lost or destroyed, the secondary evidence used by the
Respondent should not be considered.”
- 22 -
As a threshold observation, we note that an apparently
identical “secondary evidence” claim was rejected in Rodriguez v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-12, without further discussion.
Petitioner’s application here is likewise without merit. In
general, Fed. R. Evid. 1001 through 1008 address the
admissibility of originals and/or duplicates to show the contents
of a writing or record. The Forms W-2 and 1099 were at minimum
properly introduced as duplicates of business records under Fed.
R. Evid. 803(6), 902(11), and 1003, and quite possibly other
rules as well. Moreover, because respondent also properly
introduced under these rules copies (of both the front and back)
of paychecks endorsed by petitioner, we fail to see any surprise,
unfairness, or questions of accuracy or genuineness that could
lend credibility to petitioner’s complaints of secondary
evidence. See Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-124
(discussing alternative bases for admission of various of the
disputed documents in that case).
D. Rule 143 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure
Finally, petitioner makes a brief reference to Rule 143(b)
of our Rules and states that it should “trump” Fed. R. Evid.
902(11). Rule 143(b) provides that ex parte affidavits do not
constitute evidence. Again, petitioner’s reliance is misplaced.
Respondent has not attempted to proffer an ex parte affidavit as
- 23 -
evidence in this proceeding. The declaration of Ms. Wittman is
the affidavit of a third-party witness, not the affidavit of
respondent as the opposing party. Rule 143(b) has no application
in these circumstances.
E. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court affirms the admission into evidence
at trial of the declaration of Ms. Wittman and the underlying
business records. The Court further is satisfied that the
totality of the evidence in the record is sufficient to satisfy
any pertinent burden of production placed on respondent with
respect to the unreported income at issue here. Moreover, the
documents in the record provide more than ample support for
respondent’s determinations in this regard, and petitioner has
offered no evidence or argument tending to show any error
whatsoever in the determinations. The Court holds that
petitioner received from GCE unreported income in the amounts
alleged in the notices of deficiency, i.e., wages of $31,027 and
$32,054 in 1999 and 2000, respectively, and nonemployee
compensation of $28,876 and $31,779 in 2000 and 2001,
respectively.
III. Self-Employment Tax
Section 1401 imposes an additional tax on the self-
employment income of every individual, both for old age,
survivors, and disability insurance and for hospital insurance.
- 24 -
The term “self-employment income” denotes “net earnings from
self-employment”. Sec. 1402(b). “Net earnings from self-
employment”, in turn, means “the gross income derived by an
individual from any trade or business carried on by such
individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which
are attributable to such trade or business”. Sec. 1402(a).
Because, as explained above, the burden has not shifted to
respondent under section 7491(a) with respect to the deficiency
determinations, petitioner bears the burden of proving error in
the statutory notices as regards the self-employment tax issue.
Rule 142(a). Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for
self-employment taxes in the amounts of $4,080 and $4,490 by
virtue of the nonemployee compensation received from GCE in 2000
and 2001, respectively. Again, petitioner has offered no
evidence or argument pertaining to the self-employment tax.
Hence, to the extent that we have sustained respondent’s
determinations of unreported nonemployee compensation, we
likewise sustain the imposition of the corresponding self-
employment tax thereon.
IV. Additions to Tax
Section 7491(c) places on the Commissioner the burden of
production regarding additions to tax. The burden with respect
to “reasonable cause, substantial authority, or similar
provisions” then shifts to the taxpayer. Higbee v. Commissioner,
- 25 -
116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). On the record presented in this case,
respondent has carried the requisite burden of production with
respect to the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and
6654.
Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to
file a required return on or before the prescribed filing date,
unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause
and not due to willful neglect. “Willful neglect” denotes “a
conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference.” United
States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). “Reasonable cause”
correlates to “ordinary business care and prudence”. Id. at 246
& n.4; sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Through the testimony of the revenue agent, along with
transcripts and other documents admitted as evidence, respondent
showed that petitioner was required to file a return for each of
the subject years and failed to do so. Petitioner has offered no
legitimate explanation for this failure. The Court holds that
petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651 for
1999, 2000, and 2001.
Section 6654 imposes an addition to tax for underpayment of
estimated tax, subject to limited exceptions enumerated in
subsection (e). The record here reflects an underpayment of
estimated tax for each year in issue, and we do not find that any
of the referenced exceptions is applicable. Imposition of an
- 26 -
addition to tax under section 6654 is sustained with respect to
1999, 2000, and 2001.
V. Section 6673 Penalty
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a
taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it
appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained
primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such
proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
At trial in the instant case, the Court repeatedly warned
petitioner about the possibility of sanctions for frivolous
arguments advanced for purposes of delay. Counsel for respondent
likewise in his trial memorandum and during the proceedings
indicated an intent to file motions under section 6673 and did so
on October 22, 2004.
As noted in the preceding discussion, the meritless
procedural contentions put forth throughout this litigation are
indistinguishable from those rejected by the Court in cases such
as Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-12; Spurlock v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-124; Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-102; Lee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-95; and
Ruocco v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-91.8 In each of the
just-cited rulings, we characterized the positions maintained
8
A number of these cases were expressly called to
petitioner’s attention, along with the corresponding citations,
during the trial in the instant matters.
- 27 -
therein as frivolous and imposed a penalty under section 6673.
Rodriguez v. Commissioner, supra; Spurlock v. Commissioner,
supra; Wheelis v. Commmissioner, supra; Lee v. Commissioner,
supra; Ruocco v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner’s actions here
are equally insupportable, and a like treatment should obtain.
The Court concludes that a penalty of $2,500 should be awarded to
the United States in each of these two consolidated cases, for a
total penalty amount of $5,000.
To reflect the foregoing,
Appropriate orders and
decisions for respondent will
be entered.