1 Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section

references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the

year at issue.

T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

WILLIAM PAUL BENEDETTI, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 527-04S. Filed January 10, 2005.

William Paul Benedetti, pro se.

Louis H. Hill, for respondent.

COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard

pursuant to section 7463 in effect at the time the petition was

filed.1 The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any

other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,426 in petitioner's

Federal income tax for 2002 and an addition to tax under section
- 2 -

6651(a)(1) in the amount of $121.60. At trial, respondent orally

moved for imposition of the penalty under section 6673(a).

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

liable for Federal income taxes on compensation he received from

his employer for services he performed as an employee as well as

for income taxes on interest income; (2) whether petitioner is

liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax; and (3)

whether petitioner is liable for the section 6673(a) penalty.

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 was a

legal resident of Columbus, Ohio.

Petitioner was an employee of Ohio State University at

Columbus, Ohio. He worked in the university's Office of

Environmental Health and Safety in the radiation safety section. 

Petitioner's responsibility was to see that the various

laboratories on the campus of Ohio State University adhered to

Federal and State regulations affecting the use of radioactive

material. Petitioner had done this work for 10 years at the time

of trial. Prior to that, petitioner was a student at Ohio State

University and had worked part time in the Office of

Environmental Health and Safety for 2 years. Petitioner has a

bachelor's degree in physics.
- 3 -

For the year 2002, petitioner was paid $25,519 by Ohio State

University as compensation for his services as an employee. In

addition, petitioner earned interest income of $380. This amount

included $24 in interest paid to him by the U.S. Treasury for the

delayed refund of his claimed overpayment of income taxes for the

year 2001. Petitioner does not dispute the income amounts

determined by respondent.

Petitioner's 2002 Federal income tax return consisted of

Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on which he claimed

a filing status of single and claimed only himself as an

exemption. However, on the lines of the return for the reporting

of income, petitioner entered zeros, thus reporting zero income,

and a zero tax liability. On that portion of the return

regarding prepayments of tax, petitioner correctly entered the

total income tax withholdings by his employer and thus claimed a

refund for this amount, $1,818.80. The return was not processed

as an income tax return by the Internal Revenue Service. At

trial, petitioner testified that he filed a similar return for

the prior year, 2001, and, because his refund of prepaid tax was

delayed, the U.S. Treasury paid petitioner his refund, plus an

additional $24 as interest. That interest is included as one of

the income adjustments for the year 2002. Petitioner denies that

he owes any income tax on his 2002 income. He argued, at trial,

that wages are "property" and do not constitute gross income for
- 4 -

tax purposes. His argument was disjointed, as reflected in his

testimony at trial:

It is that wages have been found to be property by courts. 

Property, in order to tax that, that would be in effect

servitude of the taxpayer, making them, basically taking -–

I don't know how to phrase it exactly, but * * *. Well,

wages are not included in what is commonly called gross

income in the Tax Code. In fact, as property, it would be

taxable as ordinary income under the Tax Code, which the

only ordinary income which is taxed is real estate. So,

therefore, there is no actual tax put on wages as property.

When the Court pointed out to petitioner that section

61(a)(1) defines gross income to mean all income from whatever

source derived including, but not limited to, compensation for

services, his response was that the compensation he received as

an employee "would be corporate services". Petitioner agreed

that he was not a corporation: "my position is that the income

tax is on corporations and not on individuals. When it refers to

compensation for services, it's referring to services rendered by

a corporation." The Court rejects that reasoning.

Petitioner's argument is completely lacking in factual and

legal foundation and constitutes a textbook case of a protest of

the Federal tax laws. Such protester arguments have been heard

on numerous occasions by this Court, as well as other courts, and

have been consistently rejected. The Court sees no need to

further respond to petitioner's arguments with somber reasoning

and copious citations of precedent, as to do so might suggest
- 5 -

that his argument possesses some degree 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 he

is liable for income tax on the compensation and other income

paid to him during the year in question. His argument is

rejected.

The second issue is whether petitioner is liable for the

addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). 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". As noted earlier, petitioner's return was not

processed as a return by respondent. The purported return listed

only zeros as income. There are a host of cases where returns

that showed no income have been held not to be "returns", and the

penalty for failure to file was imposed. Turner v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2004-251; Halcott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-

214; Green v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-49; Howell v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-631. Where a purported return does

not contain any information upon which the tax can be computed,

the submitted form does not constitute a return. Turk v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-198. Respondent, therefore, is

sustained on the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).
- 6 -

At trial, respondent orally moved for imposition of the

penalty against petitioner under section 6673. 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 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). Petitioner was cautioned by the Court at trial

that his argument was frivolous and had no merit. Accordingly,

the Court grants respondent's oral motion and imposes a penalty

of $750 against petitioner under section 6673(a).

Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

An appropriate Order and

Decision will be entered for

respondent.