R made affirmative allegations in his Answer to support fraud under
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
STERRETT, Chief Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos for the purpose of hearing, consideration, and ruling on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed herein. 1*117 After a review of the record, we agree with and adopt his opinion which is set forth below.
OPINION OF SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
PANUTHOS, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 15, 1987. Petitioner's Objection to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on November 19, 1987 and a hearing was held on this matter at a Motions Session of the Court held in Washington, D.C. on November 25, 1987.
Respondent, in his notice of deficiency, dated March 3, 1987, determined deficiencies and additions to tax for the taxable years 1978 through 1981 as follows:
Additions to Tax | |||
Year | Deficiency | Section 6653(b) | Section 6654(a) |
1978 | $ 16,218,85 | $ 8,109.43 | -- |
1979 | $ 24,725.60 | $ 12,362.80 | $ 764.23 |
1980 | $ 24,096.54 | $ 12,048.27 | $ 1,540.07 |
1981 | $ 23,163.26 | $ 11,581.63 | $ 1,363.87 |
Respondent determined that petitioner failed to file returns for the years in issue. Accordingly, the primary adjustments in the notice of deficiency relate to respondent's determination that petitioner failed to report wages and other income for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981.
The petition was filed on May 18, 1987. 2 In his Answer, *118 filed July 13, 1987, respondent made affirmative allegations that the underpayment of tax for the years in issue was due to fraud. In the alternative, respondent also made claim for the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and 6653(a). On August 21, 1987, a document entitled Response to Respondent's Answer was filed as petitioner's Reply in this case. This two and one-half page document is unnumbered and unlettered and does not refer specifically to any of respondent's affirmative allegations. The allegations in the Reply, in fact, are similar to the kinds of allegations we have seen made on many prior occasions by "protestors". Attached to the Reply were various documents which are intended to support petitioner's position that he is not a taxpayer and not liable to pay a tax. For example, petitioner states "I was not a 'taxpayer' in the context of the progressive Federal income tax system." He further states, "I did not grant any right, title, or interest in any nature whatever, in or to the receipts from my services or labor."
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, respondent argues that pursuant *119 to
Summary Judgment
Petitioner failed to deny specifically many of the affirmative allegations in respondent's Answer.
The admitted facts reflect that petitioner received wages during the taxable years 1978 through 1981 and failed to file Federal income tax returns for those years. Petitioner was convicted of willful failure to file Federal income tax returns for 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 in violation of
Gross wages earned by petitioner for the taxable years 1978 through 1981 were as follows:
Year | Amount |
1978 | $ 41,774 |
1979 | $ 59,253 |
1980 | $ 57,469 |
1981 | $ 54,813 |
During *122 each of the years in issue, petitioner received W-2 Forms showing wages received from various employers. Petitioner improperly claimed exemption from withholding of Federal income taxes on Forms W-4 from some of his employers for some of the years in issue. The amount of deficiency determined, the amounts withheld, and the balance due are set forth as follows:
Year | Deficiency | Amounts Withheld | Balance Due |
1978 | $ 16,218.85 | $ 7,229.99 | $ 8,988.86 |
1979 | $ 24,725.60 | $ 5,194.69 | $ 19,530.91 |
1980 | $ 24,096.54 | -0- | $ 24,096.54 |
1981 | $ 23,163.26 | $ 1,441.27 | $ 21,721.99 |
Petitioner failed to cooperate with agents of respondent in the determination of his Federal income tax liabilities for the taxable years in issue and refused to provide any books or records of his income or expenses.
Petitioner's arguments that he is not a taxpayer, that he is not required to file returns, and that his wages do not constitute income are frivolous. Such arguments have been consistently rejected.
With respect to the fraud additions under
While failure to file returns in and of itself is insufficient to prove fraud, such failure to file returns is evidence of an intent to defraud.
The failure to file Federal income tax returns, the fact of unreported wage income, petitioner's actions of improperly reducing and preventing the withholding of income, and the failure of petitioner to cooperate in the determination of his proper income, lead us to the conclusion that there is clear and convincing evidence justifying the imposition of the additions to tax under
While respondent has not sought damages under
While we are normally reluctant to award
Based on this *126 record, we are satisfied that the proceeding was instituted and maintained primarily for delay and that petitioner's position is frivolous.
Decision will be entered for the respondent.
Footnotes
1. This case was heard pursuant to section 7456 (redesignated as section 7443A by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, section 1556, 100 Stat. 2755) and Rule 180. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2. At the time of filing the petition herein, petitioner resided at Bonner, Montana. ↩
3. On September 30, 1987, the Court set respondent's motion for hearing on October 28, 1987. A letter, dated October 23, 1987, was filed as petitioner's Motion to Continue since it appeared that petitioner had changed his address and had not received a copy of respondent's motion. ↩
4. Rule 50(c) provides as follows:
Attendance at Hearings: If a motion is noticed for hearing, a party to the motion may, prior to or at the time of such hearing, submit a written statement of his position together with any supporting documents. Such statement may be submitted in lieu of or in addition to attendance at the hearing.
5. Petitioner's Objection to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on the same date.↩
6.
Rule 37(c)↩ further provides that if no reply is filed, respondent's affirmative allegations will be deemed denied unless respondent files a motion.7. If we determine that petitioner is not liable for the addition to tax under
section 6653(b) ,then we must consider respondent's alternative allegation that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) orsection 6653(a)↩ .8.
Baker v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1978-60 , affd. without published opinion639 F.2d 787">639 F.2d 787↩ (9th Cir. 1980).9. See also
Jentzsch v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1987-513↩ .10. Based on this finding, we need not consider respondent's alternative pleading with respect to the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and 6653(a). ↩
11. See
Jentzsch v. Commissioner, supra.↩ 12. See
Janetzsch v. Commissioner, supra.↩