TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James S. Zigmont
Docket Number: 4787-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/09/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JAMES S . Z IGMONT , Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 4787-09L. 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 the 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 pages of the trial of the above case before Judge James S. 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 SERVED FEB 1 4 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5:08 p.m.) BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JAMES S. HALPERN DECEMBER 13, 2010 CASE NAME: JAMES S. ZIGMONT v. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO: 4787-09L THE CLERK: Calling Docket Number 4787-09L, 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 of fact and opinion. 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 authority granted by dection 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 3.58 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 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. This case is before the Court pursuant to an amended petition filed under åection 6330(d) for review of a TSB determination made by Respondent's Office of Appeals. By Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under TSH Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated January 23, 2009 (the notice), Appeals determined that it was appropriate to proceed by lien and levy to collect Petitioner's 2004 and 2005 Federal income tax liabilities. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. At the time lie filed the petition, Petitioner resided in West Virginia. Although in the petition, he assigns error to the notice on various grounds, at trial, Petitioner called no witnesses, introduced no documents and gave very little testimony. He reduced his assignment of error to a single ground, i.e., that before determining a deficiency in Petitioner's tax liability, Respondent is required to provide him with' a verified tax assessment,,k'Form 23C. Petitioner is $5# wrong. His notion that a Notice of Deficiency is somehow defective because Respondent has not provided him a Form 23C is misguided. Respondent may not assess Petitioner's 2004 and 2005 taxes and hence would have no occasion to prepare any record of assessment such as Form 23C until after Petitionepf 3 income tax liabilities become final, see 'ection TSR 6213(a), Cain,yi Commissioner, Tax Court Mem 2006-148, nor need appeals have provided Petitioner with Form 23C during the course of his lection 6330 hearing, Sherwood PC Commissioner, TSR Tax Court Memo 2005-268. Petitioner has failed to show error in the notice and we shall sustain it. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 Respondent has asked that we impose a penalty under ection 6673(a) (1). In pertinent part, ection 139 6673(a) (1) provides a penalty of up to $25,000 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 or groundless. Petitioner has been before this Court before and has been warned on more than one occasion that he may be subject to a7/ection 6673 penalty if he continues to raise J'SM frivolous arguments. See Zigmont 3 Commissioner, Tax Court jESR Memo. 2006-233; Zigmont,# Commissioner, Docket Number 36 8388-07L, T l Transcript 27. Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in support of his argument in the petition that he was entitled to deductions, exemptions and other amounts. His argument that he was entitled to a verified tax assessment is a meritless tax protester argument. His correspondence with Respondent's counsel contains unwarranted requests, e.g., that Ms. Wells provide her attorney license number to practice in West Virginia, and ridiculous claims, e.g., that he is unclear whether another of Respondent's counsels, Ms. DiLoreto, is the owner of a small business with no name. We can see little reason for Petitioner $8 having instituted this proceeding but to delay the collection Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 of Federal income tax due and owing . Petitioner has not only wasted his time, but he has also wasted the time of Respondent's employees, officers and counsel, not to mention 5 the waste of the Court's time in disposing of this case. "The Se.ceion purpose of 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform ISit their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate'" Takaba )/ Commissioner, 119 Tax Court 285, 295 1stt (2002) . Petitioner is deserving of a substantial penalty. We shall exercise our authority under ßection 3SH 6673(a) (1) and require Petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty of $5,000. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. An appropriate order and decision will be entered for Respondent. (Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888