TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Frank Lawrence Conces
Docket Number: 14510-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/09/2008
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 FRANK LAWRENCE CONCES, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 14510-08 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings in the above case before Judge Laurence J . Whalen at Indianapolis, Indiana, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered on November 4, 2008 . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered . (Signed) Laurence J . Whalen Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . December 9, 2008 j VED DEC 10 20 3 1 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Laurence J . Whalen 2 November 4, 200 8 3 Conces v . Commissioner Docket No . 14510-08 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render oral 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and th e 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . 8 This is a deficiency case in which Petitioner asks 9 the Court to redetermine the deficiencies determined by 10 the Commissioner for taxable years 2004, 2005, and 2006, 11 in the amount of $59,936, $49,240, and $47,087 , 12 respectively, together with penalties . 13 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 14 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Interna l 15 Revenue Code, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court 16 Rules of Practice and Procedure . In this bench opinion, 17 all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, 18 as amended , and all rule references are to the Tax Court 19 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 20 Petitioner represented himself in thes e 21 proceedings . Timothy S . Sinnott , Esquire, represented 22 the Commissioner . 23 Paragraph 5 of the petition , as I read it, makes 24 the following four points in explanation of wh y 25 Petitioner disagrees with the Commissioner's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 determination : 2 1 . Under the original taxing clause of the U .S . 3 Constitution, there can be no direct unapportioned ta x 4 and the 16th Amendment did not extend the taxing power of 5 the government . 6 2 . Title 26 of the United States Code "has never 7 been passed into real law . " 8 3 . Earning a living is a Constitutional right 9 which cannot be taxed . 10 4 . Income is a measure of the tax imposed on the 11 conduct of business in corporate form because of the 12 privileges enjoyed by corporations . This does not apply 13 to individuals . 14 The above paragraph is frivolous and merit less . 15 See, e .g . Hayward v . Day , 619 F .2d 716 (8th Cir . 1980) ; 16 Abrams v . Commissioner , 82 T .C . 403 (1984) . 17 In response, the Commissioner's attorneys filed a 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which 19 Relief Can be Granted . This is the motion presentl y 20 before the Court for decision . 21 The Commissioner's motion points out that Rule 22 34(b)(4) requires the petition in a deficiency action to 23 contain, among other things, "Clear and concis e 24 assignments of each and every error which the petitioner 25 alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 determination of the deficiency of liability . " 2 The motion also points out that under Rul e 3 34(b)(4), "any issue not raised in the assignment of 4 errors shall be deemed to be conceded . " 5 The Commissioner argues that this case should be 6 dismissed because , "Petitioner makes no factual claims of 7 error in the petition, but argues only law and lega l 8 conclusions therein" . 9 According to the Commissioner's motion, "no 10 justiciable error has been alleged in the petition with 11 respect to the Commissioner's determination set forth in 12 the notice of deficiency and no facts in support of any 13 error are apparent therein . " 14 The Commissioner states that petitioner has not 15 filed a proper petition in this case, but has filed "a 16 statement making frivolous constitutional arguments with 17 no factual basis . " 18 Petitioner filed an objection to the 19 Commissioner's motion in which he continued to advance 20 his position that there is no constitutional power of 21 taxation to which he is subject because the 16t h 22 Amendment conferred "no new power of taxation" on the 23 government . 24 Additionally, petitioner's objection states that 25 "realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 privilege that can be taxed ." The Objection also states 2 that "the right to receive income or earnings is a right 3 belonging to every person", which cannot be taxed because 6 4 it is a constitutional right . 5 In the Order setting respondent's motion for 6 argument, the Court warned petitioner that, afte r 7 reviewing his Petition and his Objection to the 8 Commissioner's motion, it appeared the petitioner's 9 position in this proceeding might be frivolous and 10 groundless . 11 The Court warned that if petitioner persisted in 12 pursuing that position in these proceedings, then the 13 Court would consider imposing damages under Section 14 6673(a) of the Internal Revenue Code . 15 When this case was called for argument on the 16 Commissioner's motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a 17 Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, petitioner failed 18 to appear . 19 In view of the fact that the only thing raised by 20 petitioner in the Petition and in petitioner's objection 21 to the Commissioner's motion is the frivolous an d 22 groundless position that the government has n o 23 constitutional authority to tax his income, we agree with 24 the Commissioner that this case should be dismissed for 25 failure to state a claim upon which relief can b e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I 7 1 granted . 2 Accordingly, we will issue an order granting the 3 Commissioner's motion and ordering petitioner liable for 4 the tax determined in the notice of deficiency . 5 Furthermore, based upon our conclusion that 6 petitioner's position in this case is frivolous and 7 groundless, and considering the high level o f 8 petitioner's unreported gross income and income ta x 9 liability, we will impose damages on petitioner, pursuant 10 to Section 6673, in the amount of $5,000 . 11 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 12 and opinion in this case . 13 (Whereupon, at 4 :33 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 14 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 15 16 // 1 7 18 // 1 9 20 // 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888