2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 16">*16 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined a $ 20,582 deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the 1996 taxable year, and a $ 2,498.85 addition to tax pursuant to
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether the amount received by petitioner in 1996 from his employer is taxable; (2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failing to file a Federal income tax return; (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failing to pay Federal income tax; (4) whether petitioner is liable for2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 16">*17 an addition to tax for failing to make estimated Federal income tax payments; and (5) whether petitioner engaged in behavior warranting the imposition of a penalty pursuant to
Background
Confronted with petitioner's refusal to work toward a stipulation of facts, respondent filed a Motion to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not Be Accepted As Established under Rule 91(f) on September 18, 2000. On September 27, 2000, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Under Rule 91(f), requiring petitioner to respond as to why matters set forth in respondent's motion should not be deemed admitted. Petitioner failed to file a response. On November 14, 2000, the Court made absolute its Order to Show Cause Under Rule 91(f), providing that the facts and evidence set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation of facts were deemed established.
The facts deemed established are: (1) At the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided in Grapevine, Texas; (2) in 1996, petitioner received $ 80,621 as compensation for services from his employer, Gulf Lake Contracting, $ 3,865 of taxable income from the sale of stocks and bonds, and $ 125 as dividend income; and (3) 2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 16">*18 petitioner did not file a tax return for 1996.
Discussion
I.Taxability of Amount Received
Petitioner does not challenge whether he received the amounts nor the calculation of the amounts received by him. Petitioner contends: (1) His wages are not taxable income because he did not perform services within the "United States" as defined by
Petitioner's arguments are nothing more than tax-protester rhetoric2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 16">*19 that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. We shall not painstakingly address petitioner's assertions "with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit."
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to
Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to
Petitioner presented no evidence or argument that the addition was improper. Additionally, petitioner did not present evidence indicating that his failure to pay was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, on this issue, we sustain respondent's determination.
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to
We find that petitioner's arguments are frivolous. He has caused this Court2002 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 16">*22 to waste its limited resources on his erroneous views of the tax law which he should have known are completely without merit. In view of the foregoing, the Court will exercise our discretion under
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
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. This regulation applies to employment taxes and has no effect on the income taxes that are at issue in this case.↩
3. The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring & Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001, 112 Stat. 726, added