MEMORANDUM OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 10,286 in petitioners' 2001 Federal income tax and a
Background
None of the facts have been stipulated. At the time they filed the petition, petitioners resided in2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 115">*116 Las Vegas, Nevada.
During 2001, petitioners received $ 216 from the Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union as interest income, $ 35,400 from Advanced Entertainment Service as self-employment income, and $ 19,522 from Defense Finance and Accounting Service as pension income. Petitioners made no estimated tax payments for 2001.
Petitioners submitted a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2001 to respondent. Petitioners listed zero as the amount of their wages, total income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, and total tax. Petitioners attached two pages to the Form 1040 reciting statements, contentions, and arguments that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.
Discussion
We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
Petitioners admit that they received the income listed in the notice of deficiency. However, petitioners contend, inter alia, that the earnings they derived are not income, that therefore they are not liable for taxes, and that income reflected on Forms 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, must be apportioned, and since no tax is apportionable to them, they had no tax liability. Petitioners advanced these and other arguments in filings and at the summary judgment hearing. These arguments are characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.
Accordingly, we conclude that petitioners are liable for the deficiency determined by respondent.
A.
Pursuant to
Respondent determined, and we sustained, a tax deficiency of $ 10,286. Petitioners conceded that they earned the income advanced in the notice of deficiency, and petitioners did not present any evidence indicating reasonable cause or substantial authority for not reporting the income. See
B.
Under
Petitioners' protester rhetoric is manifestly frivolous and groundless. They have wasted the time and resources of this Court on more than one occasion. 2 Petitioners' insistence on making2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 115">*120 protester type arguments even after both this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have summarily dismissed them indicates an unwillingness on the part of petitioners to respect the tax laws of the United States. Petitioners have had a fair warning that more penalties would be imposed if they continued to make frivolous arguments. Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty on petitioners pursuant to
2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 115">*121 To the extent not herein discussed, we have considered the parties' other arguments and found them to be meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Petitioners were before this Court regarding their 1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years, advancing similar protester arguments. We granted summary judgment for respondent with regard to the tax years at issue and imposed a