TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Edward E. Slingsby
Docket Number: 23613-08L
Judge: Morrison
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 01/04/2011
Pages: 5

T C Memo 2011 3 UNITED STATES TAX COURT EDWARD E . SL INGSBY , Pe t it ioner COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 236]:3-08L. Filed Jani.ia 2011 Eciward E . Slingsby, proase . Jason W. Anderson and Robyn R Gilliom for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION MORRISON, Judge: The IRS filed a lien to collect the federal income-tax liabilities of petitioner Edward E. Slingsby for .the years 1999, 2001 and 2002 and toccollect penalties for filing frivolous returns for 2002, 2003 and 2004. Slingsby requested an administrative hearing with sthe IRS Appeasls Office. SERVED JAN - 4 2011 2 - He received adverse determinations . He now appeals those determinations to the Tax Court. For the years 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, various companies reported on Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, |[ that they hAd paid wages to Slingsby. The companies also reported that they had withheld federal income-tax from Slingsby's wages. For each of the years 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, Slingsby filed å Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on which he reportAd that he earned zero wage income . He also reported that the companies had withheld federal income tax. Using the Forms W-2, the IRS determined that! Slingsby had earned taxable income . " !! It assèssed income-tax liabilities for 1999, 2001, and 2002.2 10 in[the record. The Form 1040 that Slingsby mailed to the IRS for 2004 is The Appeals Office determined that the Form not 1040 r ported income-tax withholdings but no wages. Slingsby does not dispute this characterization of his return. || 4Before the IRS can assess a deficiency in income tax, it Sec. issue the taxpayer a notice of deficiency. generally must 6213 (a) , The IRS contends that Slingsby received notices I . R . C. of deficiency for 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 and therefore is bar¾ed by sec. 6330(c) (2) (B), underlying tax liabilities for 1999, 2001, and 2002. Slingsby claims that he received no notices of deficiency except for the notice for 2003, which wouldi mean that he is entitled to challedge his underlying tax liabilities for 1999, 2001, and. 2002. were received because, as discussed below, Slingsby's sole challenge to his;underlying tax liabilities is that are inialid, and that challenge is unmeritorious . We need not determine whether the notices of deficiency, from contesting his I.R.C., the Forms W-2 I filed deficiency. response to the notice of deficiency for 2003, Slingsby Tax Court petition seeking a redetermination of the s The resulting case, docket No. 27943-07, was the (continued. . . ) ThetIRS alsosassessed penalties against Slingsbyifor filing frivolous returns for the years 2002p 2003 añd 2004 2 To collect Slingsby's incomeitax liabilities ifor 1999 2001, and 2002 and Slingsby's liabilities for the frivol~ousareturne penalty for 2002, 2003, ands2004, the IRS filediaalien against Slingsby's property. «By filing the notice of federal táx lien ther IRS triggered Slingsby' a rightitä request a hearing under section 6320.3 In his hearing -request' Slingsby wrote that the reason .he-disagreed with the i f iling off the lien was é a "miscalculation of takes and penalties". ThesIRS Appeals Offide held a telephone thearing with Slingsby on August 7, 2008. In the telephone ¿heai-ing, :Slingsbyfargued that the/Forms W-2 were invalid. During theitelephone hearing the Appeals Office respondedethat3Slingsby' s challenge to the salidity of the Fôi-ms W 2awas frivoloustandowould notrbe considered. In too related written: decisiondetters, the AppealsrOffice determined the filingsof the lien-was appropriate. (. continued) subject of' an Oral AOpinion ón Sept . 25, 2008 3All section" references are to the Internal Revenue Códe (Code) . 4The Appeals Office also informed Slingsby that-it believed he hadbalready hadaan opportunity to contest the liabilities cand thatetherefore the amounts òf in the hearing referringsto Slingsby's liabilitiesdor indome itaxese, Slirigsby's liabilities for frivolous÷returnipenaltires liabilit ie s . It is uncleartwhether the 3Appeals Office was ordboth types of the liabilities were not åt issue - 4 - S ingsby appealed these determinations by filing a -petition with the. Court. At the time he filed the petition, Slingsby was a iesident of Illinois. The parties (ie.e.- Slingsby and the, Commissioner of Internal Revenue) executed a stipulation of facts and a äupplemental stipulation of facts. The Coui-t hereby incorporates these as its findings of fact. BAfore thiss Court, Slingsby continues to argue that the-, Forms -2= were invalid. Slingsby reasons that the. companies that issued the Forms W-2 were' not required to do so because they are "private enterprises incorpgrated-under the laws of the several states party to. the U.S. Constitution". The idea that privater enterp ises are exempt from wage reporting is based upon Slings y's misconstruction of sections 6051(a), 3401(d), 7701(a) (26), and 3121(e) ando(h). . For examplei section 7701(a (26), provides: -"The term 'trade or business' -includes the perfordiance of the functions of a public office."5 Slingsby 11 argues jthat this provision means that. a "trade or business" il sSec. 7701(a) (26) is relevant to Form W-2 information (Sec. 3101(a) and (b) imposes Federal the provisions of secs . 3101, . 3102, 3402, and requires employers to withhold amounts from wages "to pay Insurance tax on wages received by employees. returnå because of 6051. Contrilgutions Act 3102 (a) the se . 3101 tax. withhold amounts from wages to *pay the federal requires .every person who is required to - employ e. withho d a tax under sec . 3101 or 3402 and every employer engaged in a "t rade or business" who pays for services performed by an employee to furnish the employee an information return for each year. The information return must sinclude the total amount 'of - wages paid. Sec. 3402(a) (1) requires every employer to Sec. income tak of the Sec. 6051(a) Sec . 6051(a) (3) . - 5 - includes _on_y a public office. This argument is baseless. Slingsby' s other arguments regarding these Code provisions make so little sense that we find it difficult even to explain them. We agree with'the Appeals Office that Slingsby's arguments are frivolous. We conclude that the Appeals Office did not err in making its determinations . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent .