TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James R. Garber
Docket Number: 2863-11
Judge: Ruwe
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 02/22/2012
Pages: 7

T.C. Memo. 2012-47 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JAMES R. GARBER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 2ii63-11. Filed February 22, 2012. James R. Garber, pro se. Nathan M. Sw ingley, for respondent. SÈRVED FEB 2 2 2042 - - 2 - MEMORANDUM OPINION r RUWE, Judge: This måtter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.1 In his motion, respondent moves that no genuine issue exists as to a y material fact and that the Court should sustain his determination of petitioner's d ficiencies in income tax and the related additions to tax. Respondent further move that the Court award a penalty to the United States pursuant to section 6673 on th basis that petitioner instituted these proceedings primarily for the purpose of de ay and/or petitioner's position in the present case is frivolous or groundless. In his motion, petitioner contends that respondent has not been able to provide him with "any Section of the IRS code which makes the petitioner LIABLE for the tax imposed in Section 1 of the Code" and that "[i]f the respondent can locate any section of the code which makes the petitioner 'liable' or 'required' to file a return, the petitioner will immediately plead guilty thereby saving the court a great deal of time and money. 'Unless otherwise indic ted, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and al section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended. - 3 - Background At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Indiana. On Novembe 15, 2010, respondent mailed petitioner two separate notices of deficiency.(notices) for the.taxable years 2007 and 2008. Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,51 in petitioner's 2007 income tax, as well as additions to tax of $340.20 and $219.2 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2),2 respectively. Respondent also determined a deficienòy of $1,044 in petitioner's 2008 income tax, as well as additions to tax of $234.90 and $88.74 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2), respectively. Respondent made his determinations in the notices on the basis of substitutes for returns completed pursuant to section 6020(b) and in accordance with sectioni301.6020-1(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner timely filed'his petition with this Court: In his petition, petitioner does not dispute his receipt of income for the tax years 2007 and 2008 or the amounts of:respond nt's calculated deliciencies and additions to tax. Instead, petitioner contends that.he never received an official assessment for 2007 or 2008 f and, because he did ot-file a return for 2007 or 2008, respondent "had nothing 2The amount of any addition to tLx pursuant to sec. 6651(a)(2) shall be determined pursuant to sec. 6651(a)(2), (b), and (c) on which to base his "bogus a sessments or Notices of Deficiency pursuant to "[sections] 6201(1) [and] 621 (1) (A ". Discussion Summary judgment is i ended to eipedite.litigation and to avòid uimeces(cid:0)541ary and,expensive ti·ials: Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). A rñotion for summary judgment is granted where«the pleadings and other materials I . show that there is no genuine sue as to åny material fact and that a decision may be rendei·ed as a matter of law Rule 121(b); FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 - T.C. 73, 74=75 (2001); Sundst and Corp. v. Comniissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 E.3d:965 (7 Cir. 1994). e Petitioner's response to espondent's motion fails to indicáte that there-is a genuine issue for ti·ial. Corise uentlyj we clonchide that there is no issue as'to äny material fact and that ardecisi may be rendered as-a matter of law. In his motion and in his esponse to respondent's motion, petitioner makes many unfounded arguments w ich lead him to his conclusion that no statutes render him liable for Federal income xes.. For éxample, petitioner's claims include statements such as: (1) respo ent has not been able to provide him with "any Section of the IRS code which makes the petitioner LIABLE för the tax imposed in Section l'of the C de"; (2) "a esident of the fifty states may choose to - 5 - file..a retürn theréby assessing;11imself c r he 'may' choose not to do so.r(A definition of 'may': can be föur Ld in any dictionarý¡)"; and (3) "The onlý persön÷in the Cbdé required!to file a tax return for-income taxes is the withholding agèni; referred to in Section 1461 and the only Persons referred to in Section 7203 (the Sèction used to erroneously send Per'sóns to.prison) areWithholding Agent's (See Section 7343)" * * * [áíid] "Petitioñer is not a Withholdiág:Agent referred to in Sectioh 7343." Petitioner further argues3thateit "appears quite eVidènt that the coñimissioner is trying to declare1any law that inight bolster a petitioner's case d'eclared,frivolous, thus attempting to rule by regulation in total disregard to the underlying LAWS and to THE CONSTÍTUTION." Petitioner concludes by stating thatiifzespondènt cannot fróduòe the.Code sections upon which his tax liabilities are premised, then "all of the Notices -òdDeficiency, Proposed Assessments; 4340?forms and Substitutes for Returns áré null andivo and3just diabolical.plot*to manufacture a fake"Certifibate of¼sséssment' of zer 'O iniorder!to have a basis for illegal Notices ofDeficiency; f(Yóu might say the IRS Positiontis"FRIVOLOUS and WITHOUT MERIT )". s we have se.id of similar arguments on previous occasions, petitioner's arguments are frivolous and devoid of any basis in the law. We need iiot refute them with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might - 6 - suggest that they have some e lorable merit. Sée Crain v. Commissioner, 737 Fc2d 1417, 141'7 (5th Cir. 1984); Wnuck v. Commissioner; 136 T.C. 498 (2011); Güthrie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-81. Petitioner has raised no issue in the pleadings to indicate that resp ndent's determinations in the notices were incorrectly computed, and the e is no genuine issue of material fact surrounding whether i·espondent made any assessments regarding petitioner for 2007-or 2008. Consegúently, we find respon ent's determinations in the notices for petitioner's 2007 and 2008 taxable years t be correct. Accordingly, we will grant respondent s motion for summary judgment Section 6673 Penálty . Respondent moved the ourt to impose a penalty, on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1). Section 6673(a)(1 authorizes the Court to impose a penalty not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpaye took frivolous positions in the proceeding or i - 3 instituted the proceeding prim rily for delay. A position "is frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupp rted by a reasoned, colorable argument for dhange in: the law." Coleman v. Commi sioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986). 3Attached to resp$nden s mòtion were copies of Fornis 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and ther Specified Matters, dated December 5, 2011, whichieflect that no assessme ts or payments were made i.egarding petitioner's income tax liabilities for 2007 nd 2008. Respondent also attached Form 3050, Certification of Lack of Recor , sliowing that petitioner filed no return l'or 2007 or 2008. This Court has ruled that arguments such as those petitioner asserts here are frivolous and wholly without merit. See Williams v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-277 (imposing section 6673 penalty for tax-protester arguments). Accordingly, we find that petitioner advanced frivolous arguments primarily for the purpose of delay an(require that he pay a penalty of $1,000 to the United States pursuant to section e673(a)(1). We also warn petitioner that we will consider imposing a larger pe 2alty if he returns o the Court and advances frivolous or groundless arguments in the future. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued ranting respondent's motion and denying petitioner's motion, and decision will be entered for respondent.