1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and

all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure.

T.C. Memo. 2006-144

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JOHN H. WEBSTER, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 24277-04. Filed July 6, 2006.

John H. Webster, pro se.

Huong T. Duong, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty

under section 6673.1
- 2 -

2 Respondent attached a Form 4549, Income Tax Examination

Changes, to the notice of deficiency. In the Form 4549,

respondent asserted a sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax of

$5,014.13 and a sec. 6651(a)(2) addition to tax of $5,571.25. 

These additions to tax were consolidated on the first page of the

notice of deficiency where respondent asserted a sec. 6651(a)(1)

addition to tax in the amount of $10,585.38. In his answer,

respondent concedes the sec. 6651(a)(2) addition to tax asserted

in Form 4549, and as a result, increased the sec. 6651(a)(1)

addition to tax initially asserted in Form 4549 to the maximum

amount of 25 percent of the amount required to be shown as tax on

the return. 

Respondent determined a deficiency of $22,285 in

petitioner’s 1998 Federal income tax, a section 6651(a)(1)

addition to tax of $10,585.38, and a section 6654(a) addition to

tax of $1,011.45. In his answer, respondent adjusted the amount

of the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax to $5,571.25.2

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

liable for the deficiency determined by respondent; (2) whether

petitioner is liable for the failure to file addition to tax

under section 6651(a)(1); (3) whether petitioner is liable for

the failure to pay estimated tax addition to tax under section

6654(a); and (4) whether petitioner is liable for the penalty

pursuant to section 6673.

Background

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 he filed the

petition, petitioner resided in Santa Clara, California. 
- 3 -

In 1998, petitioner received $68,532 from Focaltron

Corporation as nonemployee compensation and $32 from Wells Fargo

Bank as interest income. 

Petitioner admits that he did not file a Federal income tax

return for tax year 1998 and did not make any payments for tax

year 1998. 

Discussion

I. Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary

judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. 

Summary judgment may be granted if it is demonstrated that no

genuine issue exists as to any material fact and a decision may

be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v.

Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th

Cir. 1994). As the party who moved for summary judgment,

respondent has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523,

536, 537-538 (2000).

We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of

law.
- 4 -

II. The Deficiency

Section 61 defines gross income as all income from whatever

source derived. Gross income includes, among other things,

compensation for services and interest. Sec. 61(a).

Petitioner admits that he received the income listed in the

notice of deficiency. However, petitioner contends, inter alia,

that:

All Fedral [sic] income taxes levyed [sic] against me

from 1998 to the present should be voided since during

this time I have not been a tax filer or tax payer

[sic] as defined in the US Tax Code, nor has any of the

moneys I received resulted from interstate commerence

[sic] or otherwise met the definition of “Taxable Gross

Income” per that Tax Code. To make sure that I have

not missed anything I have specifically requested that

the IRS notify me of any law or code that actually

requires me to file or pay Federal Income Tax. They

have not notified me of any such law or code. 

In addition the Federal Government has in general

exempted me from any so called “Social Contract” to pay

taxes by an Agency of that Government having violated

my rights and thereby that Government has failed to

uphold its part of that “Social Contract”. 

Petitioner advanced these and other arguments in filings and at

the summary judgment hearing. These arguments are characteristic

of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by

this and other courts. 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). We shall not

painstakingly address petitioner’s assertions “with somber

reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might 
- 5 -

suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Crain

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

Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the

deficiency determined by respondent.

III. Additions to Tax and Penalty

A. Section 6651(a)(1)

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an

addition 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 it is shown that such

failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful

neglect. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447

(2001). Petitioner conceded that he did not file a return for

1998, and there is no showing that his failure to file was due to

reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, we

hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a)(1).

B. Section 6654(a)

Section 6654 imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay

estimated income tax. The section 6654 addition to tax is

mandatory unless the taxpayer comes within one of the limited

statutory exceptions. Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-

248. 
- 6 -

3 Petitioner was before this Court regarding his 1997 tax

year, advancing similar protester arguments. Webster v.

Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-43. We sustained

respondent’s determination and warned petitioner that the

imposition of a sec. 6673 penalty was likely if petitioner

returned to this Court advancing similar arguments. Id.

Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other

Specified Matters; Form 1099-MISC; and the stipulation of facts

establish that petitioner failed to pay any estimated tax for

1998. 

Petitioner does not qualify for any of the exceptions listed

in section 6654(e). Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is

liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a).

C. Section 6673

Under section 6673, this Court may require a taxpayer to pay

a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer takes a frivolous

position in the proceeding or institutes the proceeding 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’s protester rhetoric is manifestly frivolous and

groundless. He has wasted the time and resources of this Court

on more than one occasion.3 Petitioner’s insistence on making

protester type arguments after he was warned both in the current

proceedings and in prior proceedings before this Court indicates
- 7 -

an unwillingness on the part of petitioner to respect the tax

laws of the United States. Petitioner has had a fair warning

that penalties would be imposed if he continued to make frivolous

arguments. Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty on petitioner

pursuant to section 6673 in the amount of $2,500. 

To the extent not herein discussed, we have considered the

parties’ other arguments and found them to be irrelevant or

meritless.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and

decision will be entered.