*269 Respondent determined that petitioner's 2005 Form 1040 was not a valid return and prepared a substitute for return on behalf of petitioner under section 6020(b).⁶ Respondent issued a notice of deficiency dated March 7, 2012.

Ordinarily, the Commissioner's determinations in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determinations are erroneous. 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). Here, the record establishes, and petitioner concedes, that he received medical payments for services as a hearing aid specialist and proceeds from the sale of stock. Petitioner does not dispute 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*281 respondent's determination of the amount of his taxable income. He disputes only the characterization of these payments as taxable income.^{72013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*282} Because petitioner raises only legal issues, we *270 decide whether he is liable for the deficiency at issue without regard to the burden of proof.⁸

Section 61(a) defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived", including gains from dealings in property and compensation paid for services, whether furnished by the taxpayer as an employee, a self-employed person, or an independent contractor. Seesec. 61(a)(1), (3); Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426">348 U.S. 426, 348 U.S. 426">431, 75 S. Ct. 473">75 S. Ct. 473, 99 L. Ed. 483">99 L. Ed. 483, 1955-1 C.B. 207 (1955). Petitioner contends that the income he received from his hearing aid business is not income subject to Federal taxation. Likewise, petitioner contends that his stock sale proceeds are not subject to Federal taxation.

*271 Petitioner supports his position by contending, among other things, that he was not involved in a trade or business as defined by the Code. Petitioner defines a trade or business to include only the performance of the function of a public office, and not his private sector activities for which he received only private 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*283 sector money. Petitioner therefore asserts that the amounts he received from all third-party payors are not gain or profit from a trade or business as defined in section 7701(a)(26), taxable income, or gross income. Petitioner also contends that (1) he is not a person statutorily made liable for the income tax;⁹ (2) the income tax is an excise tax; (3) he did not have income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment; and (4) the income tax does not apply to the receipts of all American citizens.

Without exception, petitioner has raised only frivolous and groundless arguments.^{102013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*285} The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly *272 held similar arguments to be frivolous and without merit. See United States v. Morgan, 419 Fed. Appx. 958">419 Fed. Appx. 958, 419 Fed. Appx. 958">959 (11th Cir. 2011)(holding that the taxpayers' argument that they were not involved in a "trade or business" was frivolous); United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130">532 F.3d 1130, 532 F.3d 1130">1132-1133 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that an argument that income from work in the private 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*284 sector is not subject to income tax was frivolous); United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538">833 F.2d 1538, 833 F.2d 1538">1539 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating that a taxpayer's argument that withholding agents are the only persons statutorily liable for the income tax was "utterly without merit"); McNair v. Eggers, 788 F.2d 1509">788 F.2d 1509, 788 F.2d 1509">1510 (11th Cir. 1986) (stating that arguments that the taxpayer is not a person subject to the income tax and that the Internal Revenue Service does not have jurisdiction over the taxpayer are "patently frivolous"); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928">785 F.2d 928, 785 F.2d 928">928 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that the taxpayer's arguments that "only public servants are subject to tax liability" were frivolous).

Indeed, petitioner's frivolous and groundless arguments warrant no further discussion. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417">737 F.2d 1417, 737 F.2d 1417">1417 (5th Cir. 1984)*273 ("We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit."); see also Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498">136 T.C. 498, 136 T.C. 498">501-513 (2011). Because self-employment income and capital gains must be included in petitioner's income under section 61, we sustain respondent's determination with respect to the increased deficiencies as modified by concessions.

If a taxpayer assigns error to the Commissioner's determination that the taxpayer is liable for an addition to tax, the Commissioner has the burden, under section 7491(c), of producing evidence with respect to the liability of the taxpayer for the additions to tax. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438">116 T.C. 438, 116 T.C. 438">446-447 (2001). To meet this burden of production, the Commissioner must come forward with sufficient evidence showing that it is 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*286 appropriate to impose the addition to tax. Id. Once the Commissioner meets his burden, the taxpayer must come forward with sufficient evidence to persuade this Court that the determination is incorrect. Id.

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file a return for 2005. Section 6651(a)(1) authorizes the imposition of an addition to tax for failure to timely file a return, *274 unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241">469 U.S. 241, 469 U.S. 241">245, 105 S. Ct. 687">105 S. Ct. 687, 83 L. Ed. 2d 622">83 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1985); United States v. Nordbrock, 38 F.3d 440">38 F.3d 440, 38 F.3d 440">444 (9th Cir. 1994). Failure to file a timely Federal income tax return is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence but nevertheless was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. Seesec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Willful neglect means a conscious, intentional failure to file or reckless indifference towards filing. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241">469 U.S. at 245.

To meet the requirement of filing a return, a taxpayer must file a valid return. See Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766">82 T.C. 766, 82 T.C. 766">777 (1984), aff'd, 793 F.2d 139">793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986). 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*287 Under Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766">82 T.C. 777, a valid return is one that (1) contains sufficient data to calculate a tax liability, (2) purports to be a return, (3) represents an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law, and (4) is executed by the taxpayer under penalties of perjury. A taxpayer who files a document that purports to be a Federal income tax return but which contains only zeros on the relevant lines generally has not filed a valid return because it does not contain sufficient information for the Commissioner to calculate and assess a tax liability. See Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163">120 T.C. 163, 120 T.C. 163">169 (2003); Hamilton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-271; see alsoUnited States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830">627 F.2d 830, 627 F.2d 830">835 (7th Cir. 1980)*275 (stating that an income tax might conceivably be calculated on the basis of a return showing zero entries, but that "it is not enough for a form to contain some income information; there must also be an honest and reasonable intent to supply the information required by the tax code").

Respondent introduced into evidence petitioner's 2005 Form 1040 on which petitioner reported zero taxable income and which contained zeros on all 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*288 relevant income lines. Attached to petitioner's Form 1040 was a document which purported to "correct" to zero taxable income reported by certain third-party payors. The record also includes deemed stipulations that petitioner had income from various sources in amounts sufficient to require the filing of a return. Respondent did not treat petitioner's purported return as a valid return, and the record supports respondent's position that petitioner did not make an honest and reasonable attempt to supply the information required by the Code. See Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163">120 T.C. 169. Consequently, we conclude that respondent has satisfied his burden of production under section 7491(c).

Petitioner must come forward with evidence sufficient to persuade the Court that respondent's determination is in error. Petitioner did not introduce any evidence to prove that he is not liable for the addition to tax or that he had *276 reasonable cause for his failure to timely file a valid return. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for 2005.

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to pay an amount 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*289 of tax shown on a return under section 6651(a)(2). The section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax applies only when an amount of tax is shown on a return. Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163">120 T.C. 170. Petitioner did not file a valid 2005 return. However, respondent prepared a substitute for return under section 6020(b). A return prepared by the Secretary ¹¹ under section 6020(b) is treated as the return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of determining whether the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax applies. Sec. 6651(g)(2); Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200">127 T.C. 200, 127 T.C. 200">208-209 (2006), aff'd, 521 F.3d 1289">521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008).

Respondent introduced into evidence a substitute for return that satisfied the requirements of section 6020(b), as well as a copy of petitioner's account transcript. The substitute for return and the account transcript establish that petitioner failed to pay the tax shown on the substitute for return. Respondent has satisfied the burden of production under section 7491(c). Petitioner did not *277 introduce any evidence that he was unable to pay the tax owed or that he would have suffered undue 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*290 hardship if he had paid the tax on the due date. Seesec. 301.6651-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for 2005.

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654 for 2005. Section 6654 imposes an addition to tax on an individual who underpays his estimated tax.^{122013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*291} The addition to tax is calculated with reference to four required installment payments of the taxpayer's estimated tax liability. Sec. 6654(c) and (d). Each required installment of estimated tax is equal to 25% of the "required annual payment". Sec. 6654(d). The "required annual payment" is equal to the lesser of (1) 90% of the tax shown on the individual's return for that year (or, if no return is filed, 90% of his tax for such year), or (2) if the individual filed a valid return for the immediately preceding taxable year, 100% of the tax shown on that return. Seesec. 6654(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C). A taxpayer has an obligation to pay estimated tax only if he has a "required annual payment". Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200">127 T.C. 212; see also Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308">121 T.C. 308, 121 T.C. 308">324 (2003).

*278 Respondent introduced an account transcript showing that petitioner had a Federal income tax liability for 2004 and that he did not file a valid return.¹³ Respondent also introduced evidence showing that petitioner had a Federal income tax liability for 2005, that petitioner was required to file a Federal income tax return for 2005, that petitioner did not file a valid Federal income tax return, and that petitioner did not make any estimated tax payments. Therefore, respondent has shown petitioner had a required annual payment under section 6654(d)(1)(B) for 2005. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a) addition to tax for 2005 unless the Rule 155 computations show that he qualifies for the section 6654(e)(1) exception to the addition to tax.^{142013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*292}

Under section 6673(a)(1), this Court may require a taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that: (1) the taxpayer has instituted or maintained proceedings primarily for delay; (2) the taxpayer's position is *279 frivolous or groundless; or (3) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies. A taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless if it is "'contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasonable, colorable argument for change in the law.'" Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136">114 T.C. 136, 114 T.C. 136">144 (2000) (quoting Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68">791 F.2d 68, 791 F.2d 68">71 (7th Cir. 1986)).

Throughout these proceedings, petitioner repeatedly asserted arguments that are contrary to well-established law and are frivolous. At trial petitioner did not testify regarding any factual matters and instead persisted in asserting frivolous and groundless arguments. Although this Court provided ample warning in pretrial proceedings of the potential implications 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*293 of continuing to assert those frivolous and groundless arguments, petitioner did not abandon his arguments or acknowledge his liability for income tax on the income he received in 2005.^{152013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*294}

*280 Petitioner has wasted the time and resources of this Court. The record demonstrates that petitioner maintained these proceedings primarily for delay and that petitioner's asserted positions were frivolous and groundless. In the exercise of our discretion we conclude that a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) is appropriate. Petitioner shall pay to the United States a penalty of $10,000 under section 6673(a)(1).

We have considered the remaining arguments made by the parties and, to the extent not discussed above, conclude those arguments are irrelevant, moot, or without merit.

*281 To reflect respondent's concessions and the foregoing,

Decision will be entered under 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276">*295 Rule 155.