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). However, if the Commissioner raises a new issue or seeks an increase in the deficiency, the Commissioner bears the burden of proof as to the new issue or increased deficiency. SeeRule 142(a)(1).

The record establishes, and petitioner concedes, that he received (1) payments for services as a hearing aid specialist, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*282 (2) certain interest and dividend income, and (3) proceeds from the sale of stock. Petitioner does not dispute respondent's determinations of the amounts of his taxable income. He disputes only the characterization of these payments as taxable income.^{82013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*283} Because petitioner *271 raises only legal issues, we decide whether he is liable for the deficiencies at issue without regard to the burden of proof.⁹

Section 61(a) defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived", including interest income, 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), and (4); 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).^{102013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*284} Petitioner *272 contends that the income he received from his hearing aid business is not income subject to Federal taxation. Likewise, petitioner contends that his interest income, dividend income, and stock sale proceeds are not subject to Federal taxation.

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 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 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*285 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, (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.

*273 Without exception, petitioner has raised only frivolous and groundless arguments.¹¹The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly 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 sector is not subject to income tax was frivolous); 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)2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*286 (holding that the taxpayer's arguments that "only public servants are subject to tax liability" were frivolous).

*274 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) ("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, dividends, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*287 capital gains, and interest must be included in petitioner's income under section 61, we sustain respondent's determinations 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 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.

*275 Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file returns for 2006 and 2007. Section 6651(a)(1) authorizes the imposition of an addition to tax for failure to timely file a return unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*288 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). 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 has not filed a valid return because *276 it does not contain sufficient information 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*289 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.

Respondent introduced into evidence petitioner's 2006 and 2007 Forms 1040 on which petitioner reported zero taxable income and which contained zeros on all relevant lines. Attached to petitioner's Forms 1040 were documents on which petitioner purported to "correct" to zero taxable income reported by certain third-party payors. Respondent also introduced deemed stipulations that petitioner had income from various sources in amounts sufficient to require the filing of returns. Respondent did not treat petitioner's purported returns as valid returns and the record supports respondent's position. See Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163">120 T.C. 168-169. 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 additions to tax or that he had reasonable cause for his failure to timely file valid 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*290 returns. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for 2006 and 2007.

*277 Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654 for 2007. Section 6654 imposes an addition to tax on an individual who underpays his estimated tax.^{122013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*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. 200, 127 T.C. 200">212 (2006), aff'd, 521 F.3d 1289">521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308">121 T.C. 308, 121 T.C. 308">324 (2003).

Respondent introduced evidence showing that petitioner had Federal income tax liabilities, that petitioner was required to file Federal income tax returns for 2006 and 2007, that petitioner did not file a valid Federal income tax *278 return for 2006 or 2007, 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 2007. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a) addition to tax for 2007.

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 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 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*292 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 of continuing to assert those frivolous and groundless arguments, petitioner did not abandon his arguments or *279 acknowledge his liability for income tax on the income he received in 2006 and 2007.^{132013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*293}

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) in each of the consolidated cases, for a total section 6673 penalty of $20,000.

*280 We have considered the remaining arguments made by the parties and, to the extent not discussed above, conclude those arguments are irrelevant, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275">*294 moot, or without merit.

To reflect the parties' concessions and the foregoing,

Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.