2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*45 Petitioner liable for deficiencies determined by respondent.
P did not file Federal income tax returns for 1996, 1997,
and 1998. R issued a notice of deficiency for those years, in
which he determined deficiencies, as well as additions to tax
under
dispute the receipt of compensation and sale proceeds in the
amounts determined by respondent. However, P contends that the
Federal income tax is in the nature of an excise tax and that he
is not engaged in any taxable excise activities.
Held: Compensation and gain from the sale of
property are taxable as income in the year received. P's
arguments to the contrary are frivolous.
Held, further, the additions to tax under secs.
Held, further,
addition to tax where a taxpayer fails "to pay the amount
shown as tax on any return". 2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*46 The addition to tax under sec.
tax that was shown on a return. Since no returns were filed and
the record does not show that substitute returns were prepared,
the
Held, further, we shall impose a penalty of $ 2,000
on petitioner pursuant to
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
RUWE, Judge: Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner in which he determined the following Federal income tax deficiencies and additions to tax:
Additions to tax
________________
Year Deficiency
____ __________ _______________ _______________ _________
1996 $ 13,852.00 $ 3,116.70 $ 2,839.662002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*47 $ 737.27
1997 12,637.00 2,843.33 1,832.37 676.10
1998 54,133.00 11,488.95 4,340.27 2,320.88
The issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for the deficiencies and additions to tax determined by respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time petitioner filed his petition, he resided in San Jose, California.
Petitioner received $ 72,821, $ 54,086.38, and $ 57,575.69 in wages from Contract Services Co. during 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. Federal income tax of $ 3,071.14 was withheld from petitioner's wages from Contract Services Co. in 1998; no Federal income taxes were withheld in 1996 and 1997. Petitioner received $ 9,410 and $ 17,740 in nonemployee compensation from Acorn Product Development, Inc., during 1997 and 1998, respectively. On December 9, 1998, petitioner sold a single family residence located at 2716 Morrene Drive, Placerville, 95667 for $ 112,500. Petitioner2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*48 was the owner of this property immediately prior to its sale.
Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for 1996, 1997, or 1998. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner, and petitioner filed a petition with this Court.
OPINION
Petitioner does not contest the amounts of compensation and gain upon which respondent based2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*49 his deficiency determinations. Indeed, with minor exceptions, petitioner stipulated that he received the amounts determined by respondent for the tax years at issue. 2 However, petitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998.
The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed "tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish", and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion. 3
Petitioner has not shown that his failure to file was attributable to reasonable cause; therefore, we sustain the
Respondent determined additions to tax for tax years 1996, 1997, and 1998 pursuant to
(a) Addition to the Tax. -- In case of failure --
* * * * * * *
(2) to pay the amount shown as tax on any
return specified in paragraph (1) on or before
the date prescribed for payment of such tax
(determined with regard to any extension of time for
payment), unless it is shown that such failure is due
to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect,
2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*52 there shall be added to the amount shown as tax on
such return 0.5 percent of the amount of such tax if
the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an
additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or
fraction thereof during which such failure continues,
not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate * * *
[Emphasis added.]
On brief, respondent's only argument with respect to the
I.R.C. 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for
failure to pay the amount shown as tax on the return. The
addition to tax consists of an addition to the amount required
to be shown as tax on the return of .5% added for each complete
month or part of a month in which the failure to file continues,
up to the maximum of 25%. Since petitioner did not file federal
income tax returns for the 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxable years and
did not make payment sufficient to pay the amount of tax that
was2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*53 to be reported on the returns, petitioner is liable for the
addition to tax for Failure to Pay. [Fn. ref. omitted.]
Respondent's contentions provide an insufficient basis upon which to assert the
2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 45">*54 In the notice of deficiency, respondent applied
Respondent requests that we impose a penalty pursuant to
Petitioner's only argument is that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner was not engaged in a taxable excise activity. Those contentions are patently frivolous. See
Decision will be entered for respondent except for the additions to tax under
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the tax years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. The only amounts of income in respondent's determinations that were not stipulated were $ 275 of wages in 1996 and $ 263 of wages in 1997. Respondent requested that petitioner admit or deny that he received those amounts as taxable income in taxable years 1996 and 1997. Petitioner objected to those requests as legal conclusions, but he does not dispute that he received those amounts as wages during the years at issue.↩
3. In
4. We are aware of
5. The additions to tax under
6. We have jurisdiction over the