1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are

to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in

issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

(continued...)

T.C. Memo. 1998-246

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

ROSS WILLIAM BRUNER, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 23790-90. Filed July 6, 1998.

Ross William Bruner, pro se.

Rick V. Hosler, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DINAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and

182.1
- 2 -

 

1(...continued)

Practice and Procedure.

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal

income taxes and additions to tax for the years as follows:

Additions to Tax

Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(1)

1987 $1,004 $251 ---

1988 1,759 275 $88

Additions to Tax

Year Sec. 6653(a)(1)(A) Sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) Sec. 6654(a)

1987 $50.20 * $48.20

1988 --- --- 95.00

*50% of the interest due on the deficiency.

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner

received and failed to report income during the taxable years in

issue; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section

6651(a)(1) additions to tax for failure to file his 1987 and 1988

returns; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the section

6653(a)(1) additions to tax for negligence; (4) whether

petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a) additions to tax for

failure to make estimated income tax payments for 1987 and 1988;

and (5) whether we should impose sanctions on petitioner pursuant

to section 6673(a).

Petitioner resided in Tempe, Arizona, on the date the

petition was filed in this case. No stipulations of fact were

filed in this case.
- 3 -

TATT Companies International d.b.a. Pedus Security Service

reported to respondent that it paid petitioner wages in the

amounts of $11,541 and $8,482 during 1987 and 1988, respectively. 

The Department of the Air Force reported to respondent that it

paid petitioner a pension annuity in the amount of $8,165 during

1988. Morgan Shareholder Services Trust Company of AMR

Corporation (Morgan) reported to respondent that on February 13,

1987, petitioner sold some securities. Morgan reported that

petitioner received "stock&bond" income in the amount of $56 as a

result of the sale.

Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for his

1987 and 1988 taxable years.

Petitioner filed three bankruptcy petitions in the United

States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona since filing

his petition in this Court. In dismissing his third bankruptcy

petition, the presiding judge concluded that petitioner is "a

serial filer and that [his] action as a serial filer constitutes

an abuse of the bankruptcy system." 

The first issue for decision is whether petitioner received

and failed to report income during the taxable years in issue.

Section 61(a) includes in gross income all income from

whatever source derived including, but not limited to,

compensation for services, gains from dealings in property,

annuities, and pensions. Sec. 61(a)(1), (3), (9), (11).
- 4 -

Respondent's revenue agent, Shelby Bare, testified that

respondent relied upon payer information returns which were

received under the Information Returns Program (IRP) in making

the determinations contained in the statutory notices of

deficiency issued to petitioner in this case. Respondent

submitted transcripts from his IRP master file which list the

payers which reported payments to petitioner during 1987 and

1988.

At trial, petitioner failed to submit any credible evidence

into the record. Cf. sec. 6201(d). He presented no documents

and the following is the extent of his testimony:

The Court: State your name for the record, please.

Petitioner: Ross William Bruner.

The Court: And your current address?

Petitioner: I live at 5 East Cairo, Tempe, Arizona.

The Court: Very well. What did [sic] you have to say

now to convince the Court that the contents

of the statutory notice of deficiency are in

error, Mr. Bruner?

Petitioner: I have never received income, therefore, I

stand in silence.

In response to numerous questions by respondent's counsel,

petitioner declined to offer any testimony relevant to the

determination of his income for 1987 and 1988. His response to

each question was "I stand in silence."

Based on the record, we find that petitioner has failed to

meet his burden of proving any error in respondent's
- 5 -

determinations. Rule 142(a). Accordingly, we hold that

petitioner received and failed to report income in the amounts

determined by respondent for the taxable years in issue.

The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is

liable for the section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for failure to

file his 1987 and 1988 returns.

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

timely file a return, unless the taxpayer establishes that such

failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful

neglect. "Reasonable cause" requires the taxpayer to demonstrate

that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was

nonetheless unable to file a return within the prescribed time. 

United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245-246 (1985). "Willful

neglect" means a conscious, intentional failure or reckless

indifference. Id. at 246. The addition to tax equals 5 percent

of the tax required to be shown on the return if the failure to

file is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 5 percent

for each additional month or fraction of a month during which the

failure to file continues, not to exceed a maximum of 25 percent. 

Sec. 6651(a)(1).

Based on the record, we find that petitioner has failed to

prove that his failure to file his returns was not due to willful

neglect or that such failure was due to reasonable cause. We

therefore hold that petitioner is liable for the section

6651(a)(1) additions to tax.
- 6 -

The third issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable

for the section 6653(a)(1) additions to tax for negligence.

We first review the language of section 6653(a)(1) which is

applicable to petitioner's 1987 taxable year. With respect to

tax returns the due date for which is after December 31, 1986,

section 6653(a)(1)(A) provides for an addition to tax equal to 5

percent of the entire underpayment of tax if any part of the

underpayment is due to negligence or intentional disregard of

rules or regulations. Furthermore, section 6653(a)(1)(B)

provides for an addition to tax equal to 50 percent of the

interest payable with respect to the portion of the underpayment

which is attributable to negligence or intentional disregard of

rules or regulations.

We next review the language of section 6653(a)(1) which is

applicable to petitioner's 1988 taxable year. With respect to

returns the due date for which is after December 31, 1988,

section 6653(a)(1) provides that if any part of any underpayment

required to be shown on a return is due to negligence or

disregard of rules or regulations, there shall be added to the

tax an amount equal to 5 percent of the underpayment.

We have defined negligence under section 6653 as a lack of

due care or failure to do what a reasonable and ordinarily

prudent person would do under the circumstances. Neely v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985). Petitioner bears the

burden of proving that no part of the underpayments for the years
- 7 -

in issue is due to negligence or intentional disregard of rules

or regulations. Rule 142(a); Luman v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 846,

860-861 (1982).

Based on the record, we find that petitioner's entire

underpayments for 1987 and 1988 are due to negligence and his

intentional disregard of the rules or regulations which require

him to report his income. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner

is liable for the section 6653(a)(1)(A) and (B) additions to tax

for 1987 and the section 6653(a)(1) addition to tax for 1988.

The fourth issue for decision is whether petitioner is

liable for the section 6654(a) additions to tax for failure to

make estimated income tax payments for 1987 and 1988.

Unless the taxpayer demonstrates that one of the statutory

exceptions applies, imposition of the section 6654(a) addition to

tax is mandatory where prepayments of tax, either through

withholding or by making estimated quarterly tax payments during

the course of the taxable year, do not equal the percentage of

total liability required under the statute. Sec. 6654(a);

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

Petitioner bears the burden of proving his entitlement to any

exception. Habersham-Bey v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 304, 319-320

(1982).

The reporting payers withheld taxes from petitioner's income

sources in the amounts of $189 and $659 for 1987 and 1988,

respectively. Petitioner did not make any estimated tax payments
- 8 -

for 1987 or 1988, nor has he shown that any of the statutory

exceptions are applicable in this case. We therefore hold that

petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a) additions to tax for

1987 and 1988.

The fifth issue for decision is whether we should impose a

penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a).

Whenever it appears to this Court that proceedings before it

have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for

delay or the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous

or groundless, the Court, in its discretion, may require the

taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of

$25,000. Sec. 6673(a)(1)(A) and (B). A position maintained by a

taxpayer 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). A penalty is properly imposed when the taxpayer

knew or should have known that his claim or argument was

frivolous. Hansen v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1464, 1470 (9th Cir.

1987).

The amended petition filed in this case alleges that

respondent erred in the statutory notices of deficiency "in

holding that or proceeding as if the Petitioner is a person made

liable to the income tax imposed by the Code."

The other allegations of fact listed in petitioner's amended

petition and the arguments contained in his trial memorandum
- 9 -

convince us that petitioner is using this Court as a stage for

presenting his misguided interpretation of the United States

Constitution and the Federal income tax laws. 

Petitioner has caused this Court to waste its limited

resources on stale taxpayer protests which he knew or should have

known are without merit.

In view of the foregoing, we will exercise our discretion

under section 6673(a) and require petitioner to pay a penalty to

the United States in the amount of $1,000.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order

will be issued, and decision will 

be entered for respondent.