T.C. Memo. 2006-275
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JONATHAN HARRIS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 7754-06. Filed December 27, 2006.
Jonathan Harris, pro se.
Frederick J. Lockhart, Jr., for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 as
supplemented.1 Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax
1
Section references are to the applicable versions of the
(continued...)
- 2 -
return for 2000, 2001, or 2002. Respondent prepared a Form
4549A, Income Tax Examination Changes, and issued to petitioner a
notice of deficiency dated January 23, 2006, that determined the
following deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal income tax and
additions to tax:
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6651(a)(2) Sec. 6654
2000 $185,170 $41,663.25 See * below $9,890.85
2001 90,250 20,306.25 See * below 3,606.72
2002 82,605 18,586.13 See * below 2,760.39
With regard to the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for each
year, the note marked by the “*” stated that “The amount of the
addition to tax cannot be determined at this time, but an
addition to tax of .5 percent will be imposed for each month, or
fraction thereof, of nonpayment, up to 25 percent, based on the
liability shown on this report.”
Petitioner, while residing in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, timely
petitioned this Court. In his petition, petitioner denies being
a “subject” liable to tax and argues, among other things, that he
has, by his actions, relinquished his “subject” status of “U.S.
citizenship” and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the
case.
1
(...continued)
Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a
penalty under section 6673. The motion was calendared for a
hearing at a September 11, 2006, session of the Court in Denver,
Colorado. Petitioner failed to appear when the case was called.
Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court
contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error
that the petitioning taxpayer alleges to have been committed by
the Commissioner in the determination of any deficiency, addition
to tax, or penalty in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires
that the petition shall contain clear and concise lettered
statements of the facts on which the taxpayer bases the
assignments of error. See Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213,
215 (2004); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). Any
issue not raised in the pleadings is deemed to be conceded. See
Rule 34(b)(4); Funk v. Commissioner, supra at 215. Further, the
failure of a party to plead or otherwise proceed as provided in
the Court’s Rules may be grounds for the Court to hold such party
in default, either on the motion of another party or on the
initiative of the Court. See Rule 123(a); Meeker v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-146; Ward v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-147. The Court also may dismiss a case and enter a
decision against a taxpayer for the failure properly to prosecute
- 4 -
or to comply with the Rules of this Court. See Rule 123(b);
Meeker v. Commissioner, supra; Ward v. Commissioner, supra.
We agree with respondent that petitioner has failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Funk v.
Commissioner, supra at 216-217; Meeker v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner has failed to present the Court with a petition
containing clear and concise assignments of error that petitioner
alleges the Commissioner has committed in the determination of
the deficiency or the additions related thereto. Petitioner has
likewise failed to include in his petition clear and concise
statements of the facts on which he bases his assignments of
error. Petitioner’s petition contains only the type of frivolous
arguments that have been repeatedly made and rejected by this and
other courts. See, e.g., Funk v. Commissioner, supra. The
petition neither conforms to this Court’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure nor states a claim upon which relief can be based. Due
to the absence from the petition of specific justiciable
allegations of error and of supporting facts, this Court shall
grant respondent’s motion. See id.
In respondent’s motion, respondent also asks the Court to
impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673. Section
6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to
the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it
appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by
- 5 -
the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position
in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. A taxpayer’s
position is frivolous or groundless if it is “‘contrary to
established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument
for change in the law.’” Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136,
144 (2000) (quoting Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th
Cir. 1986)). We find that petitioner has advanced frivolous and
groundless statements, contentions, and arguments. We further
find that petitioner has instituted this proceeding primarily for
delay. Under the circumstances presented, we shall impose on
petitioner a penalty in the amount of $5,000.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order of
dismissal and decision will be
entered for respondent.