1

 Unless otherwise indicated, 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. 1998-242

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DEAN SCOTT HODGE, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

 Docket Nos. 8520-96, 16649-96. Filed July 6, 1998.

 Dean Scott Hodge, pro se.

 Thomas C. Pliske, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: These consolidated cases

were heard pursuant to section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181,

and 182.1
- 2 -

2

Attached to petitioner's 1992 return were six Forms W-2,

Wage and Tax Statement (Form W-2), from the following employers

reporting the following wages: (1) The Pasta House Company,

$1,917.22; (2) Crestwood Health and Fitness, Inc., $792.50;

(3) Navy Material Transportation Office, $332.26; (4) TAD

Technical and/or Consultants and Designers, $2,005.50;

(continued...)

 In separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined a

deficiency of $574 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1992,

and a deficiency of $2,719 in petitioner's Federal income tax for

1994, and additions to tax, for 1994, of $429 and $31, under

sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654, respectively.

 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is

liable for Federal income taxes on income of $2,040.63 for 1992,

and $21,909 for 1994; (2) whether, for 1994, petitioner is liable

for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to

file timely a Federal income tax return; and (3) whether, for

1994, petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section

6654 for failure to make estimated tax payments.

 Some of the facts were stipulated, and those facts, with the

annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by

reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's

legal residence was Bridgeton, Missouri.

Petitioner filed timely his Federal income tax return for

1992 reporting gross income of $24,304, consisting of wages,

$23,750; interest income, $379; and unemployment compensation,

$175.2 Petitioner also claimed itemized deductions of $7,009. 
- 3 -

2

(...continued)

(5) Prudential Ins. Co. of America, $8,522.64; and (6) Kyle

Linden Asphalt Maintenance, $274.75. Also attached to the return

was a Form W-2C, Statement of Corrected Income and Tax Amounts,

from Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Cleveland Center,

reporting wages of $9,903.61.

The return reflected a tax of $2,246, Federal income tax withheld

of $3,697, and an overpayment of $1,451.

Subsequently, in September 1994, petitioner filed a Form

1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (1992 amended

return), to amend his previously filed 1992 return. On the 1992

amended return, petitioner decreased his total income to zero and

eliminated all his deductions, credits, and exemptions to reflect

a zero tax. Petitioner listed Federal income tax withheld of

$3,697, the overpayment shown on the original return of $1,451,

and claimed an additional refund of $2,246. Thus, with the

original and amended return, petitioner claimed a refund of the

entire 1992 withholdings. Petitioner signed the 1992 amended

return and stamped above his signature "Without Prejudice UCC 1-

207". In the explanation portion of the 1992 amended return,

petitioner stated that the Internal Revenue Code does not define

"U.S. Individual", and, since he could not determine whether he

was a "U.S. Individual", his original return was filed in error. 

Based on the 1992 amended return, respondent abated $574 of

petitioner's tax liability for 1992. In the notice of deficiency

for 1992, respondent determined that this $574 abatement in tax
- 4 -

3

The notice of deficiency states, in pertinent part:

The * * * [1992 amended return] was based on various

tax protestor arguments, including the taxpayer's

contention that income taxes are voluntary, wages are

not includable in taxable income, and that the

Sixteenth Amendment is limited to excise taxes. The

Service Center erroneously processed the taxpayer's

claim and abated $574 of his tax liability. The

taxpayer received a refund for this abatement.

The assessment of petitioner's 1992 taxes, based on the filed

1992 return, remained except for the $574 abatement resulting

from the 1992 amended return. Thus, the deficiency for 1992 is

limited to the $574 abatement.

equated to $2,040 in income and made an income adjustment for

$2,040, which is characterized in the notice of deficiency as a

"Frivolous Deduction".3

In November 1994, petitioner prepared and sent to respondent

another Form 1040X for 1992, in which petitioner listed the same

amount of gross income reported on the 1992 amended return,

$24,304; however, on this second amended return, petitioner

listed $12,087.49 as "nontaxable compensation, compensation

exclusion". This second amended return listed a tax of $416 and

claimed a refund of $1,256. Petitioner also signed the second

1992 amended return and stamped above his signature "Without

Prejudice UCC 1-207". In the explanation portion of the Form

1040X, petitioner included a compilation of tax protester

gibberish. This second 1992 amended return was not accepted for

filing by respondent.
- 5 -

4

Attached to petitioner's 1994 return were three Forms W-2,

from the following employers reporting the following wages: 

(1) Clark Refining and Marketing, Inc., $18,764.34;

(2) Prudential Ins. Co. of America, $609.85; and (3) Staffing

Solutions, Inc., $2,140.94. Also attached to the return was a

Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement

or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., from

Prudential Ins. Co. of America reporting a gross distribution of

$84.43 from petitioner's retirement plan, with $4.33 being

taxable.

5

At trial, counsel for respondent stated "Respondent did not

accept this form for filing due to the qualification beneath his

signature and due to the material alterations." In Sloan v.

(continued...)

Petitioner's 1994 income tax return reported total income of

$21,575.12, consisting of wages, $21,515.13, and interest income,

$59.99.4 However, under Adjustments to Income on page 1 of Form

1040, petitioner made a material alteration to the form by

listing his salary and wage income of $21,515.13 as a deduction,

resulting in reported adjusted gross income of $59.99. Adjacent

to his improvised adjustment, petitioner whited out the

preprinted line descriptions and typed in "Compensation

exclusion, 26 CFR ('39)9.22(b) Knowlton vs Moore 178 U.S. 41

Right to Labor is nontaxable Murdoch vs Penn. 319 U.S. 105

Coppage vs. Kan. 236 U.S. 1". Petitioner also claimed the

standard deduction of $3,800 and one personal exemption of

$2,450. The return shows a zero total tax liability, Federal

income tax withheld of $1,006.70, and an overpayment of

$1,006.70. Petitioner signed his 1994 Federal income tax return

and stamped above his signature "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207".5
- 6 -

5

(...continued)

Commissioner, 102 T.C. 137, 146 (1994), affd. 53 F.3d 799 (7th

Cir. 1995), this Court held that a tampered return does not

constitute a return where the tampered portion of the return

affects the form's useability by respondent, requiring the

handling of the return through special procedures and removal of

the return from normal processing channels, thus substantially

impeding the Commissioner's physical task of handling and

verifying tax returns. Here, by claiming a "compensation

exclusion" of his salary from tax, reflected by a material

alteration of the Form 1040, would have required respondent to

withdraw petitioner's return from normal processing to ascertain

the merits of petitioner's claim that such income was excludable

from tax.

In July 1995, petitioner mailed to respondent a Form 1040X

(1994 amended return) to amend his earlier 1994 return. On the

1994 amended return, petitioner reported the same items of

income, deduction, and exemption as he reported on the original

1994 return, as well as the same tax liability and refund amount. 

As apparently had become a matter of routine, petitioner also

signed the 1994 amended return and stamped above his signature

"Without Prejudice UCC 1-207". Once again, in the explanation

portion of the 1994 amended return, petitioner recited tax

protester rhetoric similar to that stated on his previous

returns. Also, petitioner attached to his 1994 amended return a

letter and several documents asserting further tax protester

jargon. For similar reasons as recited above, respondent did not

accept petitioner's 1994 amended return for filing.

In the notice of deficiency for 1992, respondent disallowed

petitioner's "Frivolous deduction" of $2,040.63 and itemized
- 7 -

6

The Court notes that petitioner failed to advance an

argument, either in his pleadings or at trial, as to respondent's

disallowance of $0.08 in itemized deductions. Thus, the Court

considers this issue to have been abandoned by petitioner, and

respondent is sustained thereon.

deductions of $0.08, and determined a deficiency in tax of $574,

which equals the aforementioned abatement and refund respondent

had erroneously paid to petitioner.6 In the notice of deficiency

for 1994, respondent determined that petitioner had $21,513 in

wages, $55 in interest income, a $4 taxable distribution from an

Individual Retirement Account (IRA), and a $337 State income tax

refund. Respondent allowed petitioner the standard deduction of

$3,800. These adjustments resulted in a deficiency in tax of

$2,719. Respondent allowed a withholding credit of $1,004,

resulting in a balance due of $1,715. Adjustments in the notices

of deficiency were based on information reported to respondent by

various payers.

The determinations of the Commissioner in a notice of

deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden is on the

taxpayer to prove that the determinations are in error. Rule

142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).

The first issue is whether petitioner is liable for Federal

income taxes on income of $2,040.63 for 1992, and income of

$21,909 for 1994, as determined by respondent in the notices of

deficiency. Petitioner admitted at trial that he was employed in

several different jobs during 1992, and that, during such year,
- 8 -

7

Even though petitioner took the position that none of his

income was taxable, in his petition, he made no claim for an

overpayment of taxes for 1992 in excess of the amount abated by

respondent. As noted earlier, the only income adjustment for

1992 is the $2,040.63 for recovery of the $574 tax abatement by

respondent based on petitioner's September 1992 refund claim. 

See supra note 3.

he received wages in compensation for his services. Petitioner

further admitted at trial that he received, for 1994, wages of

$21,513 in compensation for his services, interest income of $55,

taxable IRA distribution of $4, and a State income tax refund of

$337. Petitioner contends, however, that this income is not

subject to Federal income taxation because the words "income" and

"U.S. Individual" are not defined in the Internal Revenue Code,

and there is no explanation in the Internal Revenue Code of who

is subject to Federal income taxes. Petitioner also asserts a

series of disjointed and unsupported tax protester arguments such

as "the income tax is voluntary", "compensation is an direct item

of income not taxable by the federal government", "the 16th

amendment and the income tax is limited to indirect excise

taxes", and so forth. Petitioner did not challenge the amounts

of income determined by respondent and made no claim to

deductions, exemptions, or credits.7

All of the arguments advanced by petitioner are completely

lacking in factual and legal foundation and constitute a textbook

case of a protest of the Federal tax laws. These types of tax

protester arguments have been heard on numerous occasions by this
- 9 -

Court, as well as other courts, and have been consistently

rejected. The Court sees no need to further respond to each of

petitioner's arguments with somber reasoning and copious

citations of precedent, to do so might suggest that petitioner's

arguments possess some measure of colorable merit. See Crain v.

Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). In short,

petitioner is a taxpayer subject to the income tax laws and to

the jurisdiction of this Court. See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82

T.C. 403, 406-407 (1984).

On this record, the Court holds that petitioner is liable

for Federal income taxes on income of $2,040.63 for 1992, and

income of $21,909 for 1994, as determined by respondent in the

notices of deficiency. Respondent is, therefore, sustained on

this issue.

The second issue is whether petitioner is liable for the

addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for his failure to file

timely a Federal income tax return for 1994. Section 6651(a)(1)

imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer's failure to file

timely returns, unless the taxpayer can establish that such

failure "is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful

neglect." Petitioner's 1994 income tax return was due to be

filed on or before April 15, 1995. Petitioner failed to file a

valid return for 1994. Sloan v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 137

(1994), affd. 53 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1995); see supra note 5. 
- 10 -

Petitioner presented nothing to show that he filed timely his

1994 return, nor did he raise as an issue any claim or contention

that the tampered or altered Forms 1040 he submitted for 1994

constituted a valid return for that year. Respondent, therefore,

is sustained on the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax.

The third issue is whether petitioner is liable for the

addition to tax under section 6654 for his failure to make

estimated tax payments in 1994. Section 6654 provides for an

addition to tax "in the case of any underpayment of estimated tax

by an individual". There is no exception contained therein

relating to reasonable cause and lack of willful neglect. 

Subject to certain exceptions provided by statute, this addition

to tax is otherwise automatic if the amounts of the withholdings

and estimated tax payments do not equal statutorily designated

amounts. Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 222 (1992).

Petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that

respondent's determination of his liability for the addition to

tax under section 6654 is in error. Consequently, because

petitioner failed to make any estimated tax payments for 1994,

respondent's determination in this regard is sustained. 

Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21 (1980).

On a final note, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to

require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United States, in an

amount not to exceed $25,000, whenever it appears that
- 11 -

proceedings have been instituted or maintained by such taxpayer

primarily for delay, or that the taxpayer's position in a

proceeding is frivolous or groundless. A petition in the Tax

Court is frivolous "if it is contrary to established law and

unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the

law." Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986).

At trial, petitioner quite frankly stated to the Court that

his position was nothing more than an act of civil disobedience,

and that, if enough people would come forward to absorb

respondent's time, as well as the Court's time, with cases of

this nature, perhaps Congress would change the income tax system. 

The Court is convinced that petitioner instituted these

proceedings primarily for purposes of delay. Certainly, his

contentions are frivolous. It is distressingly obvious that

petitioner had no intention of obeying the internal revenue laws

of this country, and that he deliberately wasted the time and

energy of this Court as he frankly admitted. Moreover, it

appears that petitioner intends to pursue similar tactics in the

future, as well as encourage others to do so, until his

grievances are heard by members of Congress. Petitioner is

reminded that this Court is not a forum for expressing "soap-box"

views condemning the unfairness of our Federal income tax laws or

the system by which such laws are enforced.
- 12 -

On this record, the Court holds that petitioner has

instituted and maintained these proceedings primarily for

purposes of delay, and that petitioner's position that his

earnings are exempt from income tax is frivolous and groundless. 

Thus, the Court hereby imposes upon petitioner a penalty in each

case, under section 6673, in the amount of $250 in favor of the

United States.

 Decisions will be entered

for respondent.