T.C. Memo. 1999-239

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

TIMIE A. MORIN, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 6477-98. Filed July 22, 1999.

Timie A. Morin, pro se.

Julie L. Payne, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following

deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax:

 Additions to Tax 

 Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654

 1994 $7,317 $1,829 $380

 1995 6,822 1,706 370
- 2 -

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect

for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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

liable for the deficiencies determined by respondent, (2) whether

petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failing to file a

Federal income tax return for 1994 and 1995, (3) whether

petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failing to make

estimated Federal income tax payments for 1994 and 1995, and (4)

whether petitioner engaged in behavior warranting the imposition

of a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. 

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference. At the time she filed her

petition, Timie A. Morin (Ms. Morin) resided in Yakima,

Washington. 

During 1994 and 1995, Ms. Morin worked as a bookkeeper. In

1994 and 1995, Ms. Morin earned $29,410 and $27,716,

respectively, from Les Morin Subaru as compensation for her

services as a bookkeeper. Ms. Morin did not file Federal income

tax returns for 1994 and 1995.
- 3 -

OPINION

Section 61 defines gross income as all income from whatever

source derived. Gross income includes compensation for services. 

See sec. 61(a)(1). In general, the Commissioner's determinations

in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and taxpayers

bear the burden of proving them erroneous. See Rule 142(a). 

Petitioner does not challenge the facts on which

respondent's determinations are based or respondent's calculation

of tax. Petitioner stipulated that during 1994 and 1995 she

received compensation and Forms W-2 from Les Morin Subaru. At

trial and on brief, petitioner advanced shopworn arguments

characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been

universally rejected by this and other courts. See Wilcox v.

Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo.

1987-225; Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.

1986). Petitioner alleges: (1) The wages or compensation she

received are not income subject to tax under section 61; (2) the

Individual Master File states that no notice of deficiency was

ever sent; (3) the Internal Revenue Service did not send a notice

of deficiency and did not file a return as mandated by section

6020(b); (4) petitioner did not receive any wages, was not an

employee as defined, and therefore had no filing requirement; and

(5) taxing her wages violates the Sixteenth Amendment. We shall

not painstakingly address petitioner's assertions "with somber
- 4 -

1 Respondent also determined that petitioner is subject to

self-employment tax. Petitioner presented no evidence at trial

regarding this issue and failed to address it on brief. 

Therefore, we hold that petitioner is subject to self-employment

tax. See Rule 142(a); see also Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.

661, 683 (1989).

reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might

suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain

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

Accordingly, we sustain respondent's deficiency determination.1

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for

additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1). Section

6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a

return on the date prescribed (determined with regard to any

extension of time for filing), unless the taxpayer can establish

that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to

willful neglect. The taxpayer has the burden of proving the

addition is improper. See Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle,

469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). Petitioner stipulated that she did not

file returns for 1994 and 1995, and she offered no evidence

showing that her failure to file was due to reasonable cause and

not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner

is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for

additions to tax pursuant to section 6654 for failing to make

estimated tax payments. Petitioner did not offer any evidence at
- 5 -

trial related to this issue, and she failed to address it on

brief. Therefore, we hold that petitioner is liable for the

addition to tax pursuant to section 6654. See Rule 142(a).

By motion made at the conclusion of trial, respondent

requested that the Court impose a penalty pursuant to section

6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a

taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed

$25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the

proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A

position maintained by the taxpayer is "frivolous" where 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 filed several frivolous requests for admissions. 

Petitioner's position, based on stale and meritless contentions,

is manifestly frivolous and groundless, and she has wasted the

time and resources of this Court. Accordingly, we shall grant

respondent's motion, and we shall impose a penalty of $2,500

pursuant to section 6673.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and 

decision will be entered for 

respondent.