Pierce v. Comm'r
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SWIFT,
Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004.
Under
| Additions to Tax | |||||
| Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | ||
| Year | Deficiency | ||||
| 2001 | $ 21,424 | $ 4,820 | n.1 | --- | $ 856 |
| 2002 | 21,129 | 4,754 | n.1 | $ 706 | --- |
| 2003 | 12,687 | 2,855 | n.1 | 332 | --- |
| 2004 | 12,904 | 2,903 | n.1 | 375 | --- |
| n.1 To be calculated in accordance with | |||||
Respondent also determined against petitioner a self-employment tax liability on the basis of payments petitioner received for work as a janitor.
On July 17, 2006, in response to respondent's *113 notice of deficiency, petitioner filed a petition containing only tax-protester arguments. By court order of November 1, 2006, petitioner's tax-protester arguments were stricken from the petition.
After the above November 1, 2006, Court order, the only viable remaining issue before the Court is respondent's determination of the
However, in opposing respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings and at a hearing that was held on February 13, 2008, in Tampa, Florida, petitioner again raises only tax-protester arguments.
We may grant judgment on the pleadings where the pleadings do not raise genuine issues of material fact or law.
Petitioner raises only tax-protester arguments, each of which has been stricken, and respondent now concedes for each year the addition to tax for fraud.
For the reasons stated, we shall grant respondent's motion *114 for judgment on the pleadings as to the tax deficiency for each year, and the tax deficiency sustained for each year satisfies respondent's burden of production under
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code applicable to the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.