Caton v. Comm'r
Opinion
VASQUEZ,
The facts have *93 been deemed stipulated under
Petitioner filed income tax returns on Forms 1040EZ, Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers with No Dependents, for 2004 and 2005 (collectively, purported returns). Petitioner's purported returns were "zero" returns in that on each return he listed zero as the amount of his wages, total income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, and total tax. Petitioner attached a Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., to each return. Both Forms 4852 stated that petitioner did not receive wages in 2004 and 2005.
However, during 2004 and 2005 petitioner received $194,317 and $186,213, respectively, for services performed for Mac Papers, Inc.4 For each year, petitioner submitted to Mac Papers, Inc., a Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, on which he claimed to be exempt from income tax withholding.5 Consequently, *94 Mac Papers, Inc., did not withhold income tax from petitioner's compensation for either year.
Respondent did not treat petitioner's purported returns as valid returns. Rather, pursuant to
The Commissioner's deficiency determinations in the notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of demonstrating otherwise.7
Petitioner concedes that he received the amounts of compensation set out in the notices of deficiency. However, petitioner asserts, using arguments that this Court has long deemed frivolous, that the income he received in 2004 and 2005 was not taxable income within the meaning of the law.8*96
We address next whether petitioner *98 is liable for the addition to tax under
The majority of courts, including this Court, have held that a return that contains only zeros is generally not a valid return.
In deciding whether a failure to file is fraudulent under
With respect to the foregoing test, the Commissioner need not prove the precise amount of the underpayment resulting from fraud, but only that some part of the underpayment of tax for each year in issue is attributable to fraud.
The Commissioner must show that the taxpayer intended to evade taxes known or believed to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of taxes.
Courts have relied on a number of indicia or badges of fraud in deciding whether to sustain the Commissioner's determinations with respect to the additions to tax for fraud. Although no single factor may be necessarily sufficient to establish fraud, the existence of several indicia may be persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud.
The instant case involves many badges of fraud. First, petitioner failed to file valid returns for the years in issue. Second, petitioner failed to make estimated payments for those years. Third, petitioner asserted only frivolous tax-protester arguments at trial and on brief. Fourth, for nine years petitioner has been filing with Mac Papers, *103 Inc., false Forms W-4 on which he claimed to not be subject to Federal income tax or income tax withholding. We have held that the filing of false Forms W-4 based upon a taxpayer's purported belief that he is exempt from tax is evidence of fraud.
We conclude that the record shows by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner understated his income and that his failure to file valid returns was fraudulent. Consequently, we hold that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under
The Commissioner's burden of production requires him to introduce evidence that the tax was shown on a Federal income tax return.
Petitioner failed to make income tax payments for the years at issue. Respondent introduced into evidence valid SFRs for the years at issue, thereby satisfying his burden of production. Petitioner has presented no evidence indicating that his failures to pay were due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect or that respondent's determinations are otherwise incorrect. We therefore hold that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under
Petitioner made no payments of estimated tax for either of the years 2004 and 2005. The record establishes that petitioner had a required annual payment for each of those years. Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for tax years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Thus, petitioner's required annual payment for each year at issue was equal to 90% of the tax for those years, and respondent has carried his burden of production with respect to the
Petitioner has not argued that any of the exceptions to the
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Respondent argues that if petitioner is not liable for an addition to tax under
sec. 6651(f) for fraudulent failure to file a return, he is liable for the fraud penalty undersec. 6663 or, alternatively, for the accuracy-related penalty undersec. 6662↩ .3. At trial respondent made an oral motion to impose a penalty under
sec. 6673↩ .4. Mac Papers, Inc., has employed petitioner as a salesman since 1983.↩
5. Petitioner submitted similar Forms W-4 to his employer since 1997.↩
6. The SFRs were prepared using a filing status of married filing separately because petitioner did not elect the joint filing status on valid returns for the years in issue. The record does not indicate whether any SFRs were prepared for petitioner's wife.↩
7. As discussed
infra p. 8, respondent has the burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence.See sec. 7454(a) ;Rule 142(b)↩ .8. Additionally, petitioner offers numerous arguments objecting to the imposition of an income tax in general, including arguments that the income tax is unconstitutional, the income tax is voluntary, and he is not a person subject to tax. This Court and others have long rejected such arguments as frivolous and without merit.
See (stating argument that taxpayer is not person subject to tax is "patently frivolous" and has been rejected by court numerous times);McNair v. Eggers , 788 F.2d 1509, 1510 (11th Cir. 1986) (observing that "[n]umerous courts have held that the payment of Federal income taxes is not voluntary");Turner v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo 2004-251 (rejecting as without merit the argument that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional).Nunn v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo 2002-250↩9. Petitioner also argues that he is not liable for the deficiencies because he had not signed the SFRs.
Sec. 6020(b) allows the Secretary (or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee) to prepare a return "from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise".See also sec. 301.6020-1(a)(1) , Proced. & Admin. Regs. The regulations provide that a substitute for return is valid if it "identifies the taxpayer by name and taxpayer identification number, contains sufficient information from which to compute the taxpayer's tax liability, and purports to be a return."Sec. 301.6020-1(b)(2) , Proced. & Admin. Regs. Additionally, the return must be signed by an internal revenue officer or employee to signify that the officer or employee has "adopted the document as a return for the taxpayer."Id. The SFRs respondent prepared are valid under the regulations, and petitioner's signature is not required.See (finding that taxpayers failed to state claim upon which relief could be granted when they argued that SFRs not signed by taxpayers were invalid).Malone v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1998-372↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.