Calliham v. Commissioner
Opinion
*256
(2) The United States is entitled to an award of damages under
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
SIMPSON,
| Additions to Tax | |||
| Sec. 6653(b) | Sec. 6654 | ||
| Year | Deficiency | I.R.C. 1954 1 | I.R.C. 1954 |
| 1980 | $3,574.00 | $1,787.00 | |
| 1981 | $7,254.00 | $3,627.00 | $556.00 |
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether the petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for fraud under
FINDINGS OF FACT
None of the facts have been stipulated.
The petitioner, Paul D. Calliham, was a legal resident of Tampa, Fla., at the time he filed his petition in this case. He filed tax protestor type documents in lieu of a proper Federal income tax return for 1980. The documents filed by the petitioner for 1980 were typical of the documents submitted in lieu of proper tax returns by members of the Keystone Society, *258 an organization that advocated that wages were not taxable income. He filed no documents as a tax return for 1981.
During 1980, the petitioner received wages totaling $19,180.64 and interest of $23.00. During 1981, he received wages totaling $29,575.53. The petitioner timely received from his employers Forms W-2 which showed the wages paid to him in 1980. Prior to 1980, the petitioner filed Federal income tax returns which reported his wages as income.
During 1980, the petitioner submitted at least one Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate) to one of his employers; on such form, he claimed that he was exempt from Federal income tax withholding. During 1981, he submitted at least one other Form W-4 claiming to be exempt from Federal income tax withholding, and he submitted Forms W-4 claiming exempt status to his employers during 1982 and 1984.
In his notice of deficiency, the Commissioner determined that the petitioner had received $19,203.64 in taxable income in 1980 and $29,575.53 in taxable income in 1981. In addition, he determined that the petitioner was liable for the addition to tax for fraud under
OPINION
The petitioner did not appear for the trial of his case. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute as to the deficiencies and the addition to tax under section 6654 for underpayment of estimated tax for 1981, and the Court indicated that it would grant such motion. Thus, the first issue for decision is whether the petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for fraud for 1980 and 1981.
The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved upon consideration of the entire record.
The precise amount of underpayment resulting from fraud need not be proved.
In the present case, the evidence in the record overwhelmingly establishes that the petitioner fraudulently underpaid his taxes during both of the years in issue. He properly filed returns for years prior to 1980; yet, he submitted no return for 1981, and the documents that he submitted for 1980*262 clearly did not constitute a return within the meaning of section 6011 and the regulations thereunder. See
The second issue for decision is whether the United States is entitled to an award of damages under
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. * * *
This Court has been faced with numerous cases, such as this one, wherein taxpayers have advanced various frivolous and groundless positions in a blatant attempt to avoid their responsibility to pay their fair share of Federal income taxes. The petitioner in this case has abused the processes of this Court and wasted its resources. On the basis of the record, we conclude that the proceedings herein were instituted primarily for delay and that the petitioner's position is both frivolous and groundless, and we accordingly award damages to the*264 United States under
Footnotes
1. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect during the years at issue, unless otherwise indicated.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.