TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Shawn Keith Weiler
Docket Number: 20158-18
Judge: Paris
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/05/2019
Pages: 6

RS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SHAWN KEITH WEILER, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 20158-18. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 trial in the above case before Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris at Cleveland, Ohio, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion on the deficiency issue in this case rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. It is further ORDERED that, on or before December 4, 2019, the parties shall file with the Court Simultaneous Opening Briefs and specifically address the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty in issue. No further briefs will be due. (Signed) Elizabeth Crewson Paris Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 5, 2019 SERVED Nov 05 2019 Bench Opinion by Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris 3 September 24, 2019 Shawn Keith Weiler v. Commissioner Docket No. 20158-18 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's findings. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. Rule references in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 opinion will be to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 11 Procedure, and section references will be to the Internal 12 Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for the taxable 13 14 years 1n 1ssue. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 16 Revenue Code and Tax Court Rule 152. 17 On September 19, 2018, respondent issued to 18 Petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency determining a 19 deficiency of $2,798 and a section 6662(a) accuracy- 20 related penalty of $559.60 for 2014. The deficiency was 21 based on unreported wage income of $31,541.48 and a State 22 23 income tax refund of $299. Respondent concedes the State income tax refund issue. The issues remaining for 24 decision are whether for 2014 petitioner (1) failed to 25 report wage income of $31,541.48, and (2) is liable for a c ners 4 20% accuracy-related penalty for 2014. Petitioner resided in Ohio when he timely filed a petition with this Court. This case was tried in Cleveland, Ohio, on September 24, 2019. Shawn Keith Weiler, petitioner, appeared pro se and Nancy P. Klingshirn appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT During 2014 petitioner performed services for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Westlake Reed Leskoksy LTD (Westlake) and received 10 11 compensation of $31,581.48. Petitioner untimely filed a Form 1040EZ, Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers 12 With No Dependents, on or about July 10, 2017. On his 13 14 2014 return petitioner reported zero income despite receiving compensation from Westlake as reported on a Form 15 W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Petitioner's Form W-2 was 16 attached to his Form 1040EZ. Petitioner reported inflated 17 Federal income tax withholdings of $6,240.89 on his 2014 18 return, by including Federal income tax withheld of 19 $3,751.27, social security tax withheld of $2,017.73, and 20 Medicare tax withheld of $471.89 from his 2014 wages. On 21 or about August 14, 2017, petitioner received a refund of $6,240.89. 22 23 On September 19, 2018, respondent issued to 24 petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency. Petitioner 25 timely filed a petition with this Court asserting he is cm ers 5 not liable for the deficiency and penalty for 2014. Petitioner currently has two other petitions pending before the Tax Court pertaining to compensation for services he performed in 2015 and 2016. Petitioner has taken the same frivolous position in each petition, claiming that his taxable income was zero. In this case, petitioner contests whether Payments to him from Westlake is taxable income. Although he admits he was employed during 2014, and that his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 employer withheld Federal income tax from his wages, 11 petitioner claims he had no taxable income. 12 OPINION 13 Gross Income 14 The Commissioner's determinations in the notice 15 of deficiency are presumed correct, and the petitioner 16 bears the burden to establish those determinations are 17 18 incorrect. See Rule 142(a), Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). The presumption applies here as the Form 19 W-2 from Westlake has been provided and petitioner admits 20 21 to having received that amount from Westlake. See Hardy v. Commissioner, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004-1005 (9th Cir. 1999) 22 aff'g T.C. Memo. 1997-97. 23 A taxpayer who has taxable income cannot legally 24 avoid income tax by filing a tax return that reports no 25 tax liability, commonly referred to as a zero return. Section 61 provides that gross income includes all income 6 from whatever source derived and, in section 61(a)(1), specifically lists compensation for services. Compensation is defined to include wages, salaries, and bonuses. Sec. 1.61-2(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. Because there is no dispute that petitioner received wages from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Westlake, petitioner had gross income for 2014. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Individuals who have gross income that exceeds the threshold amount specified by section 6012(a) must file an income tax return. Sec. 6012(a). Petitioner's gross income exceeded the section 6012(a) amount for 2014. As a result, petitioner was required to file a tax return for 2014, reporting all income he received that year. Therefore, the Court sustains respondent's determination of the deficiency for 2014. 16 Accuracy-related Penalty 17 The Commissioner bears the burden of production 18 with respect to a taxpayer's liability for penalties and 19 must provide sufficient evidence indicating it is 20 appropriate to impose the penalty. See sec. 7491(c); 21 Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). 22 As part of respondent's burden of production, 23 respondent must introduce evidence of compliance with 24 25 section 6751. Graev v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C. 460 cnt>ers 7 (2016). Section 6751(b)(1) provides that no penalty shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved, in writing, by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate. The penalty issue will be the subject of a separate opinion. CONCLUSION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Petitioner received taxable income in 2014 and 11 has offered no credible evidence or meritorious legal 12 arguments that the income he received is not taxable; his 13 only arguments are frivolous. In this matter the Court 14 15 sees "no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so 16 might suggest that these arguments have some colorable 17 merit." See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th 18 Cir. 1984). Therefore petitioner is liable for the 19 deficiency. 20 This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact 21 and Opinion on the deficiency issue in this case. (Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 22 23 24 25