T.C. Memo. 1999-106

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

FRANCIS RAY HASKINS, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 20279-97. Filed April 1, 1999.

Francis Ray Haskins, pro se.

Charles J. Graves, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in

petitioner's Federal income tax and additions to tax for the

1993, 1994, and 1995 taxable years, as follows:

 Additions to Tax 

Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654(a) 

 1993 $32,768 $8,192 $1,373

 1994 5,898 1,475 306

 1995 6,390 1,598 346
- 2 -

At trial, respondent sought an increase in petitioner's income

tax deficiency and increases in the additions to tax under

sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a). The basis for the increase was

an additional $70,162.65 of income reflected on a Form 1099-MISC

(Miscellaneous Income) from Mt. Hope Trucking, Inc., for

petitioner's 1994 tax year that had not been included in the

notice of deficiency. Petitioner conceded that he received all

amounts determined by respondent, including the increased amount

from Mt. Hope Trucking, Inc., for 1994, but he contends that no

portion of the amounts received is taxable to him. The issues,

as posed by petitioner, are (1) whether there are any provisions

of the Internal Revenue Code that classify petitioner as a

taxpayer or require him to file a return; (2) whether respondent

must provide reference to the statutory requirements to

petitioner before he is required to file a return and/or be

liable for a Federal tax; and (3) whether, as a resident of the

State of Kansas, petitioner is entitled to claim that he is a

nonresident alien and not subject to Federal tax.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner resided in Wichita, Kansas, at the time his

petition was filed. He attempted to file Forms 1040NR (U.S.

Nonresident Alien Income Tax Returns) showing zero income even

though he attached Forms 1099-MISC reflecting the payment to him

of "Nonemployee compensation" for 1993 and 1994. For the 1993

tax year, petitioner provided the following explanation:
- 3 -

1 No penalties or additions to tax have been determined or

asserted that require such an inquiry. 

I am a natural born free Citizen/National of Kansas

Republic, thus our United States of America. I have

never lived in Washington, D.C. or the territories and

I am not a federal employee. At no time during the tax

year was I in the United States.

I am presently at 8555 Katherine, Wichita, Kansas and

have resided at this address for the entire * * * tax

year.

 Petitioner received nonemployee compensation from trucking

companies for 1993, 1994, and 1995 in the amounts determined by

respondent and in the increased amount described above for 1994. 

OPINION

Petitioner seeks to avoid the incidence of Federal income

tax by advancing arguments that have been unsuccessfully advanced

by other taxpayers. He concedes that he received the amounts

designated by others as "nonemployee compensation", but he

contends that he is not subject to tax. There is no controversy

about petitioner's sincerity or motive(s) for avoiding Federal

tax.1 Simply, we must decide whether petitioner's legal

positions are sufficient.

Petitioner is not the first to pose such arguments in the

quest to avoid Federal income tax. He contends that he is not a

citizen of the United States and that he is a citizen of Kansas

only. Following this line of reasoning, he deems himself to be a

nonresident alien vis-a-vis his relationship to the Federal 

Government. In Hacker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-488, we

addressed this same argument as follows:
- 4 -

 Petitioner's so-called legal arguments or positions

were * * * concocted to avoid payment of tax * * * . 

Petitioner's legal argument is an insidious form of

sophistry where he conglomerates material out of

chronological, historical, and textual sequence solely

to reach the conclusion that he does not have to pay

tax. His attempt to convince us that he is a

nonresident alien who did not earn income from domestic

sources at a time when he resided and earned his income

in the State of California falls short of even being

specious and must fail. It would be wasteful to

further elaborate or evaluate petitioner's contentions

in this opinion. * * *

Likewise, petitioner here may be a citizen of Kansas, but he is

also a citizen of the United States. The statutory material

relied upon by petitioner and included in the record is no more

convincing or authoritative than that cited in Hacker v.

Commissioner, supra. 

As to petitioner's contention that he is not required to

file a return unless respondent can first demonstrate the legal

foundation for such requirement, the cases addressing and

rejecting that approach are numerous, and we need not waste time

reciting or analyzing them here. In this case, petitioner

admittedly failed to file returns. Respondent, based upon

information provided by third-party trucking companies,

determined that petitioner had income in each of 3 taxable years. 

Petitioner, although petitioning this Court, has not shown

factual or legal error in respondent's determination of

petitioner's correct income tax liability for the years in issue. 

In addition, respondent made a prima facie case for an increased

deficiency for 1994 and petitioner has not come forward with

evidence showing otherwise.
- 5 -

2 If we decide that the additions to tax are applicable for

1994, the amounts determined in the notice of deficiency must be

increased to reflect the increased income tax deficiency shown by

respondent. 

3 Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as

amended and in effect for the periods under consideration. Rule

references are to this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Having decided that petitioner's legal positions do not

refute respondent's determination of income tax deficiencies, we

next consider whether petitioner is liable for the additions to

tax determined by respondent.2 Petitioner admitted at trial that

he did not file a Federal income tax return for the 1993, 1994,

and 1995 tax years. Even if petitioner had contended that the

Forms 1040NR he submitted for 1993 and 1994 should suffice to

obviate the late filing addition for those years, attempts by

citizens to file in the status of a nonresident alien do not

constitute valid tax returns within the meaning of section 6651.3

See, e.g., Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-26, affd.

without published opinion 138 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 1998). In

addition, petitioner's legal positions do not suffice to justify

his failure to file and he has not otherwise shown reasonable

cause for his failure to file returns for 1993, 1994, and 1995. 

We accordingly hold that petitioner is liable for additions to

tax under section 6651(a)(1) for late filing in 1993, 1994, and

1995. 

Finally, respondent determined that petitioner is liable for

additions to tax for failure to pay estimated tax. Petitioner

has not shown any error in this determination. Therefore, we
- 6 -

hold that petitioner is liable for section 6654 additions to tax

for failure to pay estimated tax in each of the taxable years

1993, 1994, and 1995.

To reflect the foregoing and to calculate increased amounts

of income tax deficiency and additions to tax for 1994,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.