WHERRY, Judge: After a concession by respondent, ¹ the issues for decision are:

(1) Whether petitioner's military retirement pay is includable in gross income;

(2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file his 2004 tax return; ²

(3) whether petitioner is liable for 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*261 an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay his 2004 taxes; and

(4) whether the Court should impose a penalty under section 6673 for petitioner's advancement of frivolous or groundless arguments in proceedings instituted primarily for protest or delay.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of the parties, with accompanying exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time he filed his petition with this Court, petitioner resided in Florida.

Petitioner served in the U.S. Air Force for 20 years before retiring as a master sergeant. For his service petitioner is entitled to military retirement pay (MRP). For 2004 the gross amount petitioner was entitled to receive as his MRP was $1,322 per month. ³ However, petitioner executed a Veterans Administration waiver pursuant to which he waived receipt of $205 each month. ^{42010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*262}

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is the agency responsible for disbursing petitioner's MRP. For each month of 2004 the DFAS withheld approximately $716 from petitioner's MRP, $461 of which was subject to a Texas State court garnishment order for child support, and deposited the balance into petitioner's bank account. No withholdings were made for Federal income taxes. ⁵

Petitioner did not file 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*263 a Federal income tax return for 2004. Therefore, respondent prepared a substitute for return for petitioner under section 6020(b) showing a total amount due of $1,872. ⁶ On December 29, 2008, on the basis of this substitute for return, respondent mailed to petitioner at his last known address a notice of deficiency for the 2004 taxable year showing a deficiency of $1,872 and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) of $421.20 and $402.48, respectively.

Petitioner timely petitioned this Court. In his petition as well as in other filings made with this Court and at trial petitioner made broad arguments disputing the validity of the Texas State court garnishment 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*264 order. He claims widespread fraud, racial discrimination, and theft, conspiracy, and corruption on the part of various governmental entities instead of identifying or advancing specific arguments as to why he was not liable for the deficiency or the additions to tax.

This Court waived the filing fee for cause pursuant to petitioner's request. A trial was held in Miami, Florida.

As stated above, petitioner has failed to identify or advance specific arguments as to why he was not liable for the deficiency or additions to tax. Thus, petitioner fails to meet the requirement of Rule 34(b)(4) that a petition contain "Clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency or liability." Even ignoring petitioner's failure to satisfy Rule 34(b), for the reasons set forth in this opinion we will sustain the deficiency and additions to tax.

As a general rule, the Commissioner's determination of a taxpayer's liability in the notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination is improper. 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*265 See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111">290 U.S. 111, 290 U.S. 111">115, 54 S. Ct. 8">54 S. Ct. 8, 78 L. Ed. 212">78 L. Ed. 212, 1933-2 C.B. 112 (1933). However, pursuant to section 7491(a), the burden of proof on factual issues that affect the taxpayer's tax liability may shift to the Commissioner where the "taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to * * * such issue." The burden will shift only if the taxpayer has, inter alia, complied with applicable substantiation requirements and "cooperated with reasonable requests by the Secretary for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews". Sec. 7491(a)(2). Petitioner did not raise the burden of proof issue, did not introduce any credible evidence, and failed to comply with the substantiation requirements. Accordingly, the burden of proof remains on petitioner.

Petitioner's main argument is that the garnishment order issued by the Texas State court is fraudulent and "More than a million dollars have been stolen through a very eleborate [sic] scam." ^{72010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*266} Court records show this is at least the fifth time petitioner has raised this argument. ⁸

For reasons discussed below, this Court holds that (1) petitioner's MRP, including the amount garnished, is included in gross income and (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide whether 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*267 the Texas State court garnishment order is fraudulent.

Section 61(a)(11) expressly defines gross income to include pensions. Petitioner's "Military retirement pay is pension income within the meaning of sec. 61(a)(11)." Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200">127 T.C. 200, 127 T.C. 200">205 n.11 (2006), affd. 521 F.3d 1289">521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Eatinger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-310; sec. 1.61-11, Income Tax Regs.

The fact that part of petitioner's MRP was garnished does not change this result. "The discharge by a third person of * * * [a taxpayer's obligation] is equivalent to receipt by the person taxed." Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716">279 U.S. 716, 279 U.S. 716">729, 49 S. Ct. 499">49 S. Ct. 499, 73 L. Ed. 918">73 L. Ed. 918, 1929-2 C.B. 222 (1929); see also Young v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 152">113 T.C. 152, 113 T.C. 152">157 (1999), affd. 240 F.3d 369">240 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2001). The fact that the transfer is involuntary, such as by garnishment, has no significance. See, e.g., Tucker v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 675">69 T.C. 675, 69 T.C. 675">678 (1978); Chambers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-218 (holding amounts garnished from employee's wages for alimony and child support were includable in employee's income), affd. 17 Fed. Appx. 688">17 Fed. Appx. 688 (9th Cir. 2001); Vorwald v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-152010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*268 (holding that amounts transferred from taxpayer's retirement account to his former spouse in garnishment proceeding constituted deemed distributions to taxpayer from his retirement account and were, therefore, includable in his income).

A portion of petitioner's MRP was garnished pursuant to a Texas State court garnishment order for child support. The garnished funds were paid to satisfy a legal obligation petitioner owed and thus constitute petitioner's gross income.

Petitioner asserts that the Texas State court garnishment order is a result of fraud. This Court, as petitioner has been told on several occasions, lacks jurisdiction to address petitioner's allegations of fraud that may have occurred during the garnishment proceedings in the Texas State court. Child support determinations are matters of local law, and we are not permitted to reassess the merits of those judgments. See, e.g., Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U.S. 5">300 U.S. 5, 300 U.S. 5">9-10, 57 S. Ct. 330">57 S. Ct. 330, 81 L. Ed. 465">81 L. Ed. 465, 1937-1 C.B. 175 (1937) (holding that the validity of a trust assignment is a matter of local law and a State court's determination with regards to such assignment is not reviewable 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*269 by this Court); ^{92010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*270} Chambers v. Commissioner, supra (refusing to address the validity of a garnishment order for alimony and child support after taxpayer alleged his civil rights had been violated in the underlying divorce proceedings).

The Court recognizes that petitioner does not agree with the Texas State court ruling regarding his child support obligations and subsequent garnishment. But we cannot address those allegations, and petitioner has not shown a basis for excluding any amount of his MRP from gross income. Therefore, the entire amount of petitioner's MRP, including the portion garnished, is included in gross income.

Generally, "any person made liable for any tax * * * shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary." Sec. 6011(a). Section 6651(a)(1) provides that in the case of a failure to file a return on time, there is imposed, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, an addition to tax of 5 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return for each 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*271 month or fraction thereof for which there is a failure to file, not to exceed 25 percent.

Section 6651(a)(2) provides for an addition to tax of 0.5 percent per month up to 25 percent for failure to pay the amount shown or required to be shown on a return unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. ¹⁰

The respondent bears the burden of production with regard to the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax. ^{112010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260">*272} Sec. 7491(c); see Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438">116 T.C. 438, 116 T.C. 438">446-447 (2001). To meet his burden, respondent must produce sufficient evidence establishing that it is appropriate to impose the additions to tax. Id.

As stipulated, petitioner admits that he did not file his 2004 tax return and that he has not paid his 2004 taxes. Further, petitioner has not presented any evidence that such failure to file and pay was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Respondent has thus met his burden of production and accordingly, we sustain the additions to tax under both section 6651(a)(1) and (2).

Section 6673(a)(1) gives this Court discretion to "require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000" whenever it appears that:

(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,

(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or

(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies * * *