MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

THORNTON, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner John R. Rinn's Federal income taxes:

                    Additions to tax

   Year     Deficiency     Sec. 6651(a)(1)    Sec. 6654    ____     __________     _______________    _________

   1995     $ 53,053       $ 11,888.25     $ 1,176.73

   1996      46,471       11,617.75     2,473.43

   1997      47,946       11,986.50     2,565.14

   1998      65,711       16,427.75     3,006.82

   1999      45,918       11,479.50     2,222.26

   2000      30,873        7,718.25     1,649.08

Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner Donnie J. Rinn's Federal income taxes:

  2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*259                    Additions to tax

   Year     Deficiency     Sec. 6651(a)(1)   Sec. 6654    ____     __________     _______________    _________

   1995     $ 16,752       $ 2,813.00     $ 538.13

   1996      14,176        3,544.00     754.53

   1997      14,622        3,655.50     782.30

   1998      21,235        5,308.75     971.68

   1999      13,443        3,360.75     650.60

   2000      7,671        1,917.75     409.72

The issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the deficiencies and additions to tax that respondent determined. ¹

2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*260 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT ²

The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate herein. When they filed their petition, petitioners resided in Rockdale, Texas.

Petitioner John R. Rinn (Mr. Rinn) is a dentist. During 1995 through 2000, he owned a dental practice. Petitioner Donnie J. Rinn (Mrs. Rinn) was office manager and2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*261 primary bookkeeper for Mr. Rinn's dental practice.

During 1995 through 2000, Mr. Rinn earned substantial income from his dental practice, as shown below:

               Allowable

         Gross     Business     Allowable     Net

   Year     Receipts     Expenses    Depreciation   Profit

   ____     ________     ________    ____________   ______

   1995    $ 303,125    $ 157,438      $ 630    $ 145,057

   1996     344,113     214,045       630     129,438

   1997     335,592     206,944       630     128,018

   1998     343,081     155,382       630     187,069

   1999     397,578     267,672       630     129,276

   2000     261,346     170,149       630      90,567

For tax years 1995 through 2000, petitioners filed no Federal income tax returns and paid no taxes on any income from Mr. Rinn's dental practice. ³ At some point, respondent commenced an examination of2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*262 these tax years. Revenue Agent Greg Hutchinson (RA Hutchinson) was assigned to this examination.

RA Hutchinson made numerous requests to petitioners for information and records relating to Mr. Rinn's dental practice, including any journals, ledgers, expense receipts, credit card receipts, bank statements, canceled checks, deposit slips, and other items. On several occasions RA Hutchinson also requested that petitioners schedule an appointment to discuss these matters. Petitioners provided no records and failed to schedule an appointment; they responded to RA Hutchinson's requests with frivolous arguments.

Eventually, RA Hutchinson issued a summons directing petitioners to appear and produce certain requested records. Petitioners failed2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*263 to comply with this summons, and enforcement of the summons was sought in a Federal District Court. In the enforcement proceedings, Mr. Rinn still failed to produce the requested records. The District Court held Mr. Rinn in contempt of court and put him in jail.

After Mr. Rinn spent several days in jail, Mrs. Rinn provided records relating to Mr. Rinn's dental practice which she had kept as the practice's primary bookkeeper. Using these records, Mrs. Rinn identified for RA Hutchinson items of income and expense from the dental practice. RA Hutchinson then prepared written summaries of the income, expenses, and net profits from the dental practice, allowing all the expenses that Mrs. Rinn had identified. ⁴

2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*264 On the basis of the records that Mrs. Rinn had provided and the written summaries that RA Hutchinson had prepared, respondent determined deficiencies in Mr. Rinn's 1995 through 2000 Federal income taxes. ⁵ On the basis of this information, respondent separately determined deficiencies in Mrs. Rinn's 1995 through 2000 Federal income taxes, treating the dental practice income as community property income, half of which was allocable to her. ⁶

2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*265 OPINION

Generally, the Commissioner's determinations of unreported income in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111">290 U.S. 111, 290 U.S. 111">115, 78 L. Ed. 212">78 L. Ed. 212, 54 S. Ct. 8">54 S. Ct. 8 (1933). In certain circumstances, however, section 7491(a)(1) places the burden of proof on the Commissioner as to any factual issue relating to the taxpayer's liability for tax if in the court proceeding the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to that issue. ⁷ This rule applies only if the taxpayer has complied with applicable substantiation requirements, has maintained all records required under the Code, and has cooperated with the Commissioner's reasonable requests for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews. Sec. 7491(a)(2).

2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*266 Section 7491 does not place the burden of proof on respondent in this proceeding for at least two reasons. First, petitioners did not testify, call any witnesses, or otherwise introduce any evidence -- much less credible evidence -- to show error in respondent's determinations of their proper income tax liability. ⁸ Second, petitioners obdurately refused to cooperate with respondent's numerous requests for records, information, documents, and interviews. Ultimately, in a summons enforcement proceeding, a Federal District Court put Mr. Rinn in jail for his noncompliance. Only then did Mrs. Rinn finally produce the records that respondent had requested.

2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*267 At trial, petitioners submitted a document wherein they contend that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination relieves them of any duty to cooperate with respondent's requests for information. Apart from submitting this document, however, petitioners have not expressly invoked any Fifth Amendment privilege against testifying in this proceeding, nor have they alleged any reasonable expectation that testifying in this proceeding or cooperating with respondent's requests for information would tend to subject them to criminal prosecution. ⁹ Cf. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441">406 U.S. 441, 406 U.S. 441">444, 32 L. Ed. 2d 212">32 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 1653">92 S. Ct. 1653 (1972); Moore v. Commissioner, 722 F.2d 193">722 F.2d 193, 722 F.2d 193">195 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-20. More fundamentally, however, even if petitioners had validly asserted a privilege against self-incrimination in this proceeding, such an assertion would not substitute for relevant evidence, see United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752">460 U.S. 752, 460 U.S. 752">758, 75 L. Ed. 2d 521">75 L. Ed. 2d 521, 103 S. Ct. 1548">103 S. Ct. 1548 (1983); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661">92 T.C. 661, 92 T.C. 661">684-685 (1989); Traficant v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 501">89 T.C. 501, 89 T.C. 501">504 (1987), affd. 884 F.2d 258">884 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1989), and consequently2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*268 would not relieve petitioners of the section 7491(a)(1) requirement that they introduce relevant credible evidence as a precondition of our placing the burden of proof on respondent.

Accordingly, the burden of2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*269 proof remains on petitioners to show error in respondent's determinations. ¹⁰ As explained below, petitioners have failed to carry their burden.

The evidence in the record shows that petitioners failed to report substantial amounts of income2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*270 from Mr. Rinn's dental practice for their 1995 through 2000 tax years. RA Hutchinson properly reconstructed the income, expenses, and net profits from Mr. Rinn's dental practice using records that Mrs. Rinn had prepared in her capacity as primary bookkeeper of that business. RA Hutchinson reviewed the records with Mrs. Rinn; she explained the various transactions that were listed; and RA Hutchinson prepared written summaries on the basis of Mrs. Rinn's explanations allowing all the expenses that she had identified. The notices of deficiency issued to petitioners were prepared on the basis of the records that Mrs. Rinn provided and RA Hutchinson's written summaries.

At trial, petitioners called no witnesses and introduced no evidence germane to Mr. Rinn's receipt of income from his dental practice during the years 1995 through 2000. Petitioners did not testify, but merely raised unmeritorious objections to respondent's introduction into evidence of the records that Mrs. Rinn had previously provided respondent and the written summaries that RA Hutchinson had prepared. ¹¹

2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*271 Petitioners filed no brief in this case; however, in a number of documents submitted to respondent and this Court, including their petition, petitioners have raised frivolous arguments relating to the definition of income, the voluntary nature of the income tax, and their liability for payment of income tax. We see no need to address these frivolous arguments, the likes of which have been addressed and uniformly rejected in many precedents. See, e.g., Takaba v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 285">119 T.C. 285 (2002); Nestor v. Comm'r, 118 T.C. 162">118 T.C. 162, 118 T.C. 162">167 (2002).

On the basis of the evidence in the record and petitioners' failure to present any relevant evidence, we hold that petitioners received taxable income from Mr. Rinn's dental practice in the amounts that respondent determined in the notices of deficiency, with proper adjustments to eliminate any double counting of the dental practice income in the computations of petitioners' separate deficiencies. ¹²

Under section 7491(c), the Secretary has the burden of production in any court proceeding with respect to the liability of any individual for any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount imposed by the Code. Section 7491(c) applies with respect to examinations that are commenced after July 22, 1998. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(c), 112 Stat. 727. Section 7491(c) applies to petitioners' 1998 through 2000 tax years, since these tax years ended after July 22, 1998. In the absence of any evidence indicating when the examinations of the other tax years commenced, we shall assume that section 7491(c) applies to all tax years at issue.

A. Section 6651(a)(1) Additions to Tax

Section 6651(a)(1) provides an addition to tax for failure to file a return on or before the specified filing date unless it is shown that this failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Pursuant to section 7491(c), respondent must show that the addition to tax is appropriate; however, petitioners bear the burden of proving that their failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not due to2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*273 willful neglect. See Higbee v. Comm'r, 116 T.C. 438">116 T.C. 438 (2001).

Petitioners failed to file Federal income tax returns for their 1995 through 2000 tax years, even though Mr. Rinn's dental practice produced substantial income. ¹³ In prior years, petitioners filed Federal income tax returns and included Mr. Rinn's income from his dental practice. Petitioners introduced no evidence establishing reasonable cause for their failures to file; indeed, the record demonstrates that their failures to file were attributable to their taking frivolous positions regarding their obligation to report and pay Federal income taxes. We hold that respondent has met his burden of production, and we sustain the imposition of section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for petitioners' 1995 through 2000 tax years. ¹⁴

2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*274 B. Section 6654 Additions to Tax

Section 6654 provides for an addition to tax in the case of any underpayment of estimated tax by an individual. Except in very limited circumstances not applicable in this case, see sec. 6654(e)(3)(B), section 6654 provides no exception for reasonable cause, Mendes v. Comm'r, 121 T.C. 308">121 T.C. 308, 121 T.C. 308">323 (2003). Instead, the section 6654 addition to tax is mandatory unless one of the limited statutory exceptions applies. Sec. 6654(e); Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874">91 T.C. 874, 91 T.C. 874">913 (1988).

We conclude that respondent has met his burden of production under section 6654. It is clear from the record that petitioners were required to make estimated tax payments for their 1995 through 2000 tax years. ¹⁵2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*275 Petitioners do not dispute that they made no estimated tax payments for these years. Further, petitioners do not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to the section 6654 addition to tax. Consequently, we sustain the imposition of section 6654 additions to tax for petitioners' 1995 through 2000 tax years. ¹⁶

C. Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty

Respondent has not asked that we impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty, even though petitioners' filings in this case and their submissions to respondent have included numerous frivolous arguments. At trial, we warned petitioners that we might impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty if they continued to raise these arguments. After trial, petitioners filed no brief and have not otherwise continued to pursue frivolous arguments in this proceeding. On the assumption that petitioners have heeded our warning, we shall not impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty. We strongly caution petitioners, however, that section 6673(a)(1) penalties may be imposed if they relapse into making frivolous2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 258">*276 arguments before this Court.

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.