1984 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 108">*108
Petitioner filed a petition in this Court claiming that his wages are not taxable income. He had previously filed a similar petition and was informed by this Court that his contentions were without merit.
82 T.C. 235">*236 OPINION
Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:
Sec. 6651(a) 1 | Sec. 6653(a) | Sec. 6654(a) | ||
Year | Deficiency | addition to tax | addition to tax | addition to tax |
1977 | $ 7,102.00 | $ 1,775.50 | $ 355.10 | $ 227.26 |
1979 | 6,969.12 | 1,742.28 | 348.46 | 292.70 |
1980 | 4,949.48 | 1,237.37 | 247.47 | 316.76 |
1984 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 108">*110 The issues are (1) whether wages received by petitioner constitute gross income under
The facts have been fully stipulated and are so found.
Petitioner John A. Grimes resided in El Cajon, Calif., when the petition was filed herein.
During the years in issue, 1984 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 108">*111 petitioner worked for the following electric companies from whom he received wages as shown:
1977 | 1979 | 1980 | |
El Cajon Electric Co. | $ 21,450 | $ 28,597 | $ 19,730 |
Owl Electric, Inc. | 370 | ||
Southland Electric, Inc. | 3,504 | ||
Total wages | 21,820 | 28,597 | 23,234 |
He also received interest totaling $ 18 and $ 11 in 1977 and 1979, respectively, and dividends totaling $ 38 in 1980. Petitioner 82 T.C. 235">*237 did not have any Federal income tax withheld from his wages nor did he pay any estimated tax during the years in issue.
Petitioner did not file a return for any of the years in issue. In his notices of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner had taxable income of $ 27,430, $ 27,608, and $ 22,272 for 1977, 1979, and 1980, respectively. Respondent also asserted additions to tax under
The first issue is whether wages received by petitioner constitute gross income under
The next two issues are whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file timely income tax returns and for negligence under
The fourth issue is whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under
The fifth issue is whether the statute of limitations bars the assessment of the deficiency and addition to tax for 1977. Since petitioner did not file a return for 1977, the statute of 82 T.C. 235">*238 limitations had not expired when respondent sent to petitioner a notice of deficiency for 1977. Sec. 6501(c)(3). Thus, respondent is not barred from assessing the deficiency and addition to tax for 1977.
Finally, we must determine whether damages should be awarded to the United States under
In an effort to strengthen this Court's ability to "stem the tide" of frivolous cases, Congress recently amended
In the instant case, petitioner's conduct clearly compels us to award damages under
To reflect the foregoing,
6. A computation under Rule 155 is necessary because the parties have stipulated that petitioner's 1977 wages were less than the amount asserted in the notice of deficiency.↩
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and in effect during the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. In his brief, petitioner did not argue that the interest and dividends he received were not income. Even if he had, however, it is clear that both interest and dividends constitute gross income under
3. Since the petition herein was filed with this Court on Jan. 11, 1983, the amended version of
Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless, damages in an amount not in excess of $ 5,000 shall be awarded to the United States by the Tax Court in its decision. Damages so awarded shall be assessed at the same time as the deficiency and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Secretary and shall be collected as a part of the tax.↩
4. See also
5. See
6. A computation under Rule 155 is necessary because the parties have stipulated that petitioner's 1977 wages were less than the amount asserted in the notice of deficiency.↩