TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James S. Zigmont
Docket Number: 26588-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/09/2011
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JAMES S. ZIGMONT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 26588-09. O R D E R 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 transcript of Halpern at Charleston, West Virginia on December 13, 2010, containing his oral conclusion of trial. fact and opinion rendered at the above case before Judge James S. the pages of the the trial of findings of the In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) James S. Halpern Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 9, 2011 2 (5:01 p.m.) BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JAMES S. HALPERN DECEMBER 13, 2010 CASE NAME:. JAMES S. ZIGMONT v. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO: 26588-09 THE CLERK: Calling Docket Number 26588-09, James S. Zigmont. ' THE COURT: The court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 of fact and opinion. 11 12 13 14 The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by,#'ection 7459(b) of the Internal 138 16 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 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. Respondent determined a deficiency of $129,662 in Petitioner's Federal income tax for 2006 and additions to tax of $29,173.95, $16,856.0/ and SSR Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 | 1 2 $6,135.82 under fections 6651(a) (1), 6651(a) (2) and JS 6654, respectively. Petitioner assigned error to 3 3 Respondent's determination of a deficiency on the 4 5 6 7 8 9 ground that respondent has not taken into consideration any deductions, expenses, allowances and exemptions that Petitioner may qualify for. At the time he filed the petition, Petitioner resided in West Virginia. Petitioner filed no Federal income tax return for 2006. Respondent made a substitute for 10 return for Petitioner for that year. A copy of the 11 Notice of Deficiency attached to the petition shows 12 13 14 15 that respondent determined that for 2006 based on information reported by payers, Petitioner received income of $434,408. In determining Petitioner's 2006 tax liability of $129,662, Respondent allowed 16 Petitioner a standard deduction of $6,400. Petitioner 17 18 19 bears the burden of proof with respect to deficiency in tax. See Rule 142(a). Petitioner has introduced no evidence that 20 would support any deductions in excess of the standard 21 deduction allowed by Respondent, nor has he introduced 22 evidence that would support any allowances, exemptions 23 or other amounts. 24 At trial, Petitioner argued that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 2 respondent is required to provide him with a verified tax assessment, X Form 23C, before determining a 55H 3 deficiency in tax. Petitioner is wrong. His notion 4 5 that a Notice of Deficiency is somehow defective because Respondent has not provided him a Form 23C is 6 misguided. 7 8 9 . Respondent may not assess Petitioner's 2006 taxes and hence would have no occasion to prepare any record of assessment such as Form 23C until after 10 the Tax Court's decision has become final in this 11 proceeding to redetermine Petitioner's deficiency. See 12 ,$ection 6213(a); Cain,¥Ï Commissioner, Tax Court Memo 3 13 14 2006-148. We shall sustain the deficiency in tax. Petitioner did not file a return for 2006 15 or 2005, nor has he paid the amount on the substitute 16 17 for return that respondent made. Respondent has sustained his burden of production with respect to the 18 additions to tax and Petitioner has failed to show 19 20 21 22 reasonable cause and the absence of willful neglect or any other mitigating circumstances. We shall sustain the additions to tax. Respondent has asked that we impose a 23 penalty underglection 6673(a) (1). In pertinent part, 24 j'ection 6673(a) (1) provides a penalty of up to $25,000 EER Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 2 3 if the taxpayer has instituted or maintained proceedings before the Tax Court primarily for delay or the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous 4 or groundless. 5 Petitioner has been before this Court 6 before and has been warned on more than one occasion 7 8 that he may be subject to a,$'ection 6673 penalty if he Jfdi continues to raise frivolous arguments. See Zigmont V. 9 Commissioner, Tax Court Memo. 2006-233; ZigmontyM'. 10 Commissioner, Docket Number 8388-07L, T l Transcript 356 55 11 12 13 27. Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in support of his argument in the petition that he was 14 entitled to deductions, exemptions and other amounts. 15 His argument that he was entitled to a verified tax 16 17 18 assessment is a meritless tax protester argument. His correspondence with Respondent's counsel contains unwarranted requests, e.g., that Ms. Wells provide her 19 attorney license number to practice in West Virginia, 20 and ridiculous claims, e.g., that he is unclear whether 21 another of Respondent's counsels, Ms. DiLoreto, is the 22 23 24 owner of a small business with no name. We can see little reason for Petitionerf¢ SH having instituted this proceeding but to delay the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 collection of Federal income tax due and owing. 2 Petitioner has not only wasted his time, but he has 3 also wasted the time of Respondent's employees, 4 officers and counsel, not to mention the waste of the 5 Court's time in disposing of this case. Seeboa "The purpose 6 7 8 ofg6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform JSH their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate " Takaba ff. Commissioner, 119 Tax e JSR 9 Court 285, 295 (2002). 10 Petitioner is deserving of a substantial 11 penalty. We shall exercise our authority under -dection 35& 12 6673(a) (1) and require Petitioner to pay to the United 13 States a penalty of $5,000. 14 This concludes the Court's oral findings 15 of fact and opinion in this case. An appropriate order 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and decision will be entered for Respondent. (Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888