Aston v. Comm'r
Opinion
*104 Judgment entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 2,104 and additions to tax of $ 73.64 and $ 101.85 pursuant to
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner had a deficiency for 1999, as determined by respondent; (2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failing to file a Federal income tax return for 1999; (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failing to make estimated tax payments for 1999; and (4) whether petitioner engaged in behavior warranting the imposition of a penalty pursuant to
*105 FINDINGS OF FACT
None of the facts have been stipulated. At the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided in Billings, Montana.
During 1999, petitioner was employed by the Kmart Corp. (Kmart) in Billings, Montana. In 1999, Kmart paid petitioner $ 21,078.12 in wage income. During 1999, Kmart withheld zero Federal income tax, $ 1,306.84 of Social Security tax, and $ 305.63 of Medicare tax. Petitioner made no estimated income tax payments for 1999.
Petitioner submitted an unsigned Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1999 to respondent. Petitioner listed zero as the amount of his wages, total income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, and total tax. On the line for nontaxable income earned petitioner listed "ALL". Petitioner claimed a refund of $ 1,926.12 for amounts withheld for Federal income tax ($ 1,612.47) and estimated tax payments ($ 313.65). Both pages of the Form 1040A were stamped "under duress" and "without prejudice". Petitioner attached 30 pages to the Form 1040A reciting statements, contentions, and arguments that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless.
*106 OPINION
As a general rule, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the Commissioner's deficiency determinations incorrect.
We found petitioner's testimony to be evasive, vague, conclusory, and/or questionable. Petitioner introduced no credible evidence regarding his income for 1999, and he introduced no evidence to establish that he met the prerequisites of
In 1999, petitioner received $ 21,078.12 in wages from Kmart. In motions, at trial, and on brief, petitioner advanced shopworn arguments characteristic of tax protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.
In 1992, the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), seized 17 firearms, assorted ammunition, and destructive devices (firearms) from petitioner. The firearms seized by ATF were used or acquired by petitioner in violation of chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code and subject to forfeiture pursuant to that law. 5
On December 7, 1999, ATF sent petitioner a letter notifying him that administrative forfeiture*109 proceedings regarding the firearms had "commenced in accordance with the provisions of
On January 31, 2000, ATF sent petitioner a letter acknowledging that on December 28, 1999, petitioner filed a claim and a request for waiver of the cost bond to contest the forfeiture of the firearms and informing petitioner that the matter was referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Utah.
Petitioner testified that Ms. Probst stole jewelry, automobiles, and other property from petitioner. A letter and a memorandum dated February 18, 1999, from Dennis Paxinos, a Yellowstone County attorney, stated that Mr. Paxinos had reviewed the two volumes of materials petitioner had sent to him and that he (Mr. Paxinos) could not in good faith file a criminal complaint for theft against Ms. Probst. Mr. Paxinos stated that petitioner's allegations that Ms. Probst and others had stolen property from petitioner*110 were previously reviewed in 1996, and based on his review of the current file Mr. Paxinos concluded that Ms. Probst had the authority to take the allegedly stolen property and had a claim of right, title, or ownership on the allegedly stolen property.
The Court is not required to accept petitioner's unsubstantiated testimony.
Even if we were to accept petitioner's testimony, the evidence does not establish that any of the alleged losses (from the seizure of the firearms or the alleged theft of property) occurred in 1999.
C. Conclusion
*111 Based on the foregoing, we sustain respondent's deficiency determination.
A.
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to
Respondent introduced as evidence the Form 1040A for 1999 that petitioner submitted to respondent. 6 This return was not signed. Such unsigned tax return submitted to the Commissioner is insufficient to avoid the addition to tax pursuant to
*113 Petitioner presented no evidence that he timely filed a return for 1999 or that his failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. We hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to
B.
Petitioner presented no evidence that he had any income tax withheld, paid any estimated income taxes for 1999, or that an exception pursuant to*114
III.
At trial, the Court advised petitioner that the arguments he was advancing were frivolous and groundless. Furthermore, the Court directed petitioner to several opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court to which this case is appealable, holding petitioner's arguments to be frivolous and groundless. 7
*115 Petitioner filed numerous frivolous documents and motions with the Court before and after the trial. Petitioner's position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless, and he has wasted the time and resources of this Court. Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty of $ 2,500 pursuant to
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
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. The documentary evidence the Court received from petitioner at trial consisted of: (1) A letter from respondent to petitioner regarding respondent's making third party contacts, (2) documents regarding the seizure of property from petitioner, (3) documents regarding the alleged theft of property from petitioner by his ex-wife, and (4) a 12-page letter from petitioner to respondent containing numerous frivolous and groundless arguments regarding why he was not subject to Federal income tax.↩
3. We note, however, that our resolution of this issue does not depend on which party bears the burden of proof.↩
4. Petitioner did not claim these losses on his unsigned Form 1040A for 1999 that he submitted to respondent.↩
5. Petitioner testified that he was imprisoned from 1994 through 1998 for "Department of Treasury tax violations".↩
6. Petitioner testified that the first name on the Form 1040A is spelled "Ercyk" whereas petitioner's first name is spelled "Eryck"; however, he did not testify that the Form 1040A was not his. This appears to be no more than a typographical error given that petitioner's name, correctly spelled, and signature appears on documents attached to the Form 1040A and petitioner testified that his Social Security number is listed on the Form 1040A.↩
7. The Court apprised petitioner of the following cases:
Schramm v. Commissioner, 988 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1993) , affg.T.C. Memo. 1991-523 ;United States v. Ferrel, 925 F.2d 1471 (9th Cir. 1991) ; andWilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1988) , affg.T.C. Memo. 1987-225↩ .
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.