1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

T.C. Memo. 1997-5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

ALBERT L. BARCROFT, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 21515-95. Filed January 2, 1997.

Albert L. Barcroft, pro se. 

Candace M. Williams, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax:

 Additions to Tax 

Year Deficiency

Section

6651(a)1

Section

6654(a)

1992 $40,235 $10,059 $1,754

1993 42,751 10,688 1,792
- 2 -

2 At trial, respondent conceded the determination in the notice

of deficiency (notice) that petitioner had capital gain in the

amount of $24,000 for 1993.

The issues remaining for decision are:2

(1) Does petitioner have nonemployee compensation income

for 1992 and 1993 in the amounts of $121,823 and $108,914,

respectively? We hold that he does.

(2) Is petitioner liable for self-employment tax for each

of the years 1992 and 1993? We hold that he is.

(3) Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a) for each of the years 1992 and 1993? We hold

that he is to the extent stated herein.

(4) Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under

section 6654(a) for each of the years 1992 and 1993? We hold

that he is to the extent stated herein.

Petitioner resided in Trenton, Texas, at the time the

petition was filed.

Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's

determinations in the notice are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch

v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). 

In answering respondent's requests for admissions, petitioner admitted that he received $121,823 and $108,914 from First

National Life and Health as nonemployee compensation during 1992

and 1993, respectively. However, he claims that such compensation is not income and that he is not subject to tax on such

compensation. 
- 3 -

3 Petitioner further asserted that although he did not file a

Form 1040 for each year at issue, he submitted a "Statement in

Lieu of a Return" (statement) for each such year. Those statements contain protester-type contentions that have been rejected

by the courts as groundless. For example, those statements

assert: 

I also began to study the constitution and other supporting documents. To my amazement, I discovered that the

"progressive income tax" is obviously and blatantly unconstitutional, at least for the posterity of those men who

wrote the Constitution, which is still the Supreme Law of

our Land! I am one of their posterity, so such a tax cannot

apply to me!

* * * * * * *

In the 1991, 1040 Forms and Instructions package, under

"Filing Requirements," it states, "The rules under Do I Have

to File? apply to all U.S. Citizens and resident aliens."

I am not a "U.S. citizen," subject to federal

jurisdiction, such as "officers, employees, and elected

officials of the United States," nor do I reside within a

federal territory such as Washington D.C., or a federal

enclave within a State, or a U.S. Possession.

According to the Original Constitution, I am a "Naturalborn, Free Citizen/National of the United States of America"

whose "birth origin" was the State of Texas, and whose

primary citizenship is of the State of Texas.

* * * * * * *

I am not a "tax protester," and I am not a "tax cheat"! 

What I AM is an AMERICAN! I AM a FREE and Sovereign Citizen

under the Law of Nature, the Law of God, the Law of Nations,

the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the

United States of America!

Now that I fully understand my Rights, and the fact that

participation with the IRS is voluntary, I WILL no longer

volunteer to be a part of such a destructive and lawless

(continued...)

In answering respondent's request for admissions, petitioner

also admitted that he did not file a Federal income tax return

(Form 1040) for either of the years at issue.3 However, he 
- 4 -

3(...continued)

system. 

* * * * * * *

If it is proven, by the Internal Revenue Service, using

findings of fact and conclusions of law, that I am a "taxpayer" per 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)14 [sic], I will file an amended

statement and/or return and pay the resultant tax. My

intent is only to avoid "voluntarily" claiming taxpayer

status with its accompanying liability. I am willing to pay

any tax for which I am properly liable, but wish to avoid

any amounts for which I am not liable. However, at this

time, I have determined my status to be that of "nontaxpayer". I hereby demand that you immediately forward to

me a document stating that I am not liable and/or required

to file a "1040 tax return," or that you produce the statutory authority that requires me to file said return. 

In addition to the above, I want to be on record as

objecting to the use of Federal Reserve Notes, Federal

Reserve Banks, Zip Codes, Social Security Numbers, and any

other "federal monopoly benefits". * * *

I consider Federal Reserve Notes fraudulent. They are

not notes because they do not promise to pay anything at a

certain date. They can't be dollars because the word "dollar" is a noun. A dollar is a word designating a unit of

measure such as pound or quart. Therefore, the use of the

word "dollar" on a Federal Reserve Note really means a

dollar's worth of nothing.

* * * * * * *

Finally, no liability can arise from the involuntary use

of these bogus instruments. 

* * * * * * *

I am not engaged in any revenue taxable activity. I have

no income! I am not a person made liable under the Internal

Revenue Code! As a law abiding Citizen of the Sovereign

State of Texas, I will not participate in the fraud of the

U.S. federal government, and I claim and demand all of my

Rights and protections under the Original Constitution.

contends that he was not required to file a return for either of

those years because "the income tax system is based upon volun-
- 5 -

tary compliance".

On the record before us, we find that petitioner has nonemployee compensation income in the amounts of $121,823 and

$108,914 for 1992 and 1993, respectively. Except for the capital

gain determination in the notice for 1993 that respondent has

conceded and any correlative effect of that concession on the

computation of the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and

6654(a) for 1993, we further find on the instant record that

petitioner has not satisfied his burden of showing error in any

of the other determinations in the notice. 

To reflect the foregoing and the concession of respondent,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.