T.C. Memo. 1999-264

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

RONALD MCDOUGLE, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 4171-98. Filed August 6, 1999.

Ronald McDougle, pro se.

Paul Voelker, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

PARR, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in, and

additions to, petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows:

 Additions to tax 

Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a)

1993 $16,198 $4,049.50 $678.69

1994 15,782 3,945.50 818.93
- 2 -

1Petitioner refused to sign any documents, claiming

protection under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the taxable years in issue, and all Rule references

are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless

otherwise indicated.

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether for 1993 and 1994

petitioner is properly subject to Federal income tax. We hold he

is. (2) Whether for 1993 and 1994 petitioner is liable for

additions to tax under section 6651(a). We hold he is. (3)

Whether for 1993 and 1994 petitioner is liable for additions to

tax under section 6654(a). We hold he is.

None of the facts have been stipulated.1 At the time the

petition in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Reno,

Nevada. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for the

taxable years 1993 and 1994. 

In 1993, petitioner received nonemployee compensation from

M. Renken Distributing in the amount of $48,928, and gambling

winnings from Western Village Associates in the amount of $1,685.

In 1994, petitioner received nonemployee compensation from

M. Renken Distributing and Gordon Kinnaman in the amounts of
- 3 -

$43,622 and $4,852, respectively, and gambling winnings from

Western Village Associates in the amount of $1,282.

OPINION

Petitioner does not challenge the facts on which

respondent's determinations are based, nor the calculation of

tax. Petitioner's argument is merely that he is not properly

subject to tax and is not required to file Federal income tax

returns.

Petitioner submitted documents, including six letters signed

by purported "tax professionals", in support of his argument. 

These letters were from:

Sherwood T. Rodrigues

Certified Public Accountant (Ohio)

Sunnyvale, California

Michael L. Kailing

Tax Accountant

Honolulu, Hawaii

Guy G. Curtis*

Attorney at Law

Imperial, Nebraska

*Petitioner introduced two letters from Guy G. Curtis, Attorney at Law.

William T. Conklin, M.A.

Communication & Language Expert

Denver, Colorado

Fred M. Ortiz

Tax Consultant

Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
- 4 -

Petitioner also sent copies of the documents he submitted to

the following persons:

William T. Conklin - Paralegal

Denver, Colorado

Lowell Becraft - Attorney

Huntsville, Alabama

Guy Curtis - Attorney

Imperial, Nebraska

The main theme of the letters, and petitioner's argument, is

that he is not required to file a Federal income tax return

because it is a voluntary practice. Paying taxes is not

voluntary. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th

Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; Carter v. Commissioner,

784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Malone v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1998-372; Liddane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-259;

Stonerock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-264; see also United

States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 292 (7th Cir. 1985); May v.

Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 1304 & n.3 (8th Cir. 1985); United

States v. Wilber, 696 F.2d 79, 80 (8th Cir. 1982). 

The letters also contain additional hackneyed arguments that

have been universally rejected by this and other courts. See

Wilcox v. Commissioner, supra; see also Fujita v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1999-164. We shall not painstakingly address

petitioner's assertions "with somber reasoning and copious

citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these
- 5 -

arguments have some colorable merit." See Crain v. Commissioner,

737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). No useful purpose would be

served by any further explanation. Suffice to say, petitioner is

subject to Federal income tax during the relevant years, and we

sustain respondent's deficiency determinations.

Respondent determined an addition to tax under section

6651(a) for failure to file a timely return for 1993 and 1994.

Section 6651(a) provides for an addition to tax for failure to

file a timely return. The addition to tax is equal to 5 percent

of the amount required to be shown as tax on the return, with an

additional 5 percent for each additional month or fraction

thereof during which the failure continues, not exceeding 25

percent in the aggregate.

A taxpayer may avoid the addition to tax by establishing

that the failure to file a timely return was due to reasonable

cause and not willful neglect. See Rule 142(a); United States v.

Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245-246 (1985). Petitioner asserts that he

relied on the advice rendered to him in the letters he submitted

to the Court. As evident from the documents he submitted to the

Court, petitioner had to search nationwide to procure materials

in support of his meritless positions. 

While reliance on advice as to whether a return must be

filed may constitute reasonable cause, the person giving that

advice must be competent to render that advice and the reliance
- 6 -

on that advice must be reasonable. See United States v. Boyle,

supra at 250; see also Bowman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-

88. By the very nature of the advice given, petitioner's

reliance on that advice was not reasonable. See Bowman v.

Commissioner, supra; see also Sanders v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1997-452 ("While petitioner may have honestly believed that she

did not have to file tax returns, that belief was not

reasonable."). Petitioner has not established that his failure

to file timely returns was due to a reasonable cause. 

Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determinations on this

issue.

Respondent determined an addition to tax under section

6654(a) for underpayment of individual estimated tax. Petitioner

failed to pay estimated tax during the years in issue, and he has

offered no evidence to show that he qualifies for one of the

exceptions provided in section 6654(e). Thus, respondent's

determinations on this issue are sustained.

The Tax Court is authorized under section 6673(a)(1) to

require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in

excess of $25,000 when it appears to the Court that the

taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. 

Petitioner's position, based on stale and meritless

contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless, and his

action has resulted in the waste of limited judicial and
- 7 -

administrative resources. Previously, on its own motion, this

Court has awarded damages to the United States under section 6673

where the taxpayer advanced frivolous and groundless contentions

similar to those advanced by petitioner. See Abrams v.

Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 408-413 (1984). Although we do not

now impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1), we caution

petitioner that if he continues to advance such arguments to this

Court, he will invite such penalties in the future.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

for respondent.