T.C. Memo. 1999-12

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JEFFREY THOMAS KEARNEY, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 18672-97. Filed January 25, 1999. 

Jeffrey Thomas Kearney, pro se.

Steven W. LaBounty, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in

petitioner's Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:

 Additions to Tax 

 Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 66541

 1995 $17,524 $3,630 $769

1Respondent conceded that the addition to tax under sec.

6654 does not apply.
- 2 -

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.

Petitioner resided in Saint Peters, Missouri, at the time

the petition was filed. Petitioner has not filed a Federal

income tax return for 1995. In the notice of deficiency,

respondent determined that petitioner had income consisting of

wages reported on Forms W-2 in the amount of $16,851, a capital

gain from the sale of stock of $1,402, and taxable distributions

from petitioner's qualified retirement plan of $45,322 for 1995.

After allowance of the standard deduction for 1995 and one

exemption, petitioner's 1995 tax liability was determined based

on the rates applicable to a single person, thereby resulting in

a base income tax liability for 1995 of $12,992. Respondent also

determined that taxable distributions to petitioner from his

qualified retirement plan are subject under section 72(t) to a

penalty of 10 percent as a result of premature distributions and

that petitioner was liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to

tax for failure to file a tax return. 

In his petition and amended petition, petitioner did not

assign error to any single adjustment made by respondent in the

notice of deficiency or allege facts to support any assignment of

error. Rather, petitioner alleged in his petition that the "IRS

does not have legal jurisdiction over me to assess a tax against
- 3 -

me, they lack the authority, and in my written requests to them

to prove their authority, they chose to break the law by not

responding." In his amended petition, petitioner alleges that

the "IRS has no legal authority to assess a tax delinquency in

the amount of $17,524.00 against me." The amended petition

asserts that the "delinquency assessment in the amount of

$17,524.00 should be ordered to be held null and void as it does

not apply to compensation for labor." 

In his second amended petition, petitioner admits that

during 1995 he received (1) wages of $16,852, (2) IRA

distributions of $42,596, and (3) pension/annuity distributions

of $48,418 (more than respondent determined in the notice of

deficiency). Petitioner assigned error only to the determination

that such amounts are subject to taxation. In the second amended

petition, petitioner alleged that his filing status for 1995 is

head of household, that he is entitled to claim three exemptions

(one for himself and two for dependents described as his son and

daughter), and that he has various itemized deductions. 

Petitioner offered no evidence to support his alleged filing

status, his claim of three exemptions, or his purported itemized

deductions. 

In general, the determinations made by the Commissioner in a

notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer

bears the burden of proving that those determinations are

erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115

(1933). Moreover, any issue not raised in the pleadings is
- 4 -

1See In re Kearney, No. 96-45972-399 (Bankr. E.D. Mo., Mar.

20, 1997).

deemed to be conceded. Rule 34(b)(4); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78

T.C. 646, 658 n.19 (1982); Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 736,

739 (1980).

Petitioner has not offered any evidence to show that

respondent's determination is in error. We, therefore, uphold

respondent's determination as modified by his concession.

The petition, amended petitions, and petitioner's brief

contain nothing but typical tax protester rhetoric. We see no

need to address painstakingly petitioner's basic arguments. 

Indeed, they have already been addressed by another court.1

Petitioner is not exempt from Federal income tax. See Abrams v.

Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 406-407 (1984).

Except with respect to

the addition to tax under

section 6654, decision will

be entered for respondent.