TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ardran S. Taylor
Docket Number: 7192-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/30/2009
Pages: 7

Kc/ UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 ARDRAN S . TAYLOR, Petitioner, v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 7192-09 0 R'D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Atlanta, Georgia, on October 21, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at th~ conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent in which a $5,000 section 6673 penalty will be imposed . (Signed ) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . November 30, 2009 SERVED Dec 01 2009 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o 2 Docket Number 7192-0 9 October 21, 200 9 2 3 Taylor v . Commissioner 4 5 The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact 6 and opinion in this case, and the following represents 7 ' the Court's oral finding of fact and opinion . Thi s 8 oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be cited 9 as authority in any other case . 10 Section references contained in this bench 11 opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, . as 12 amended, in effect for 2006 . Rule references are to 13 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 14 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 15 deficiency is conducted pursuant to the provisions of 16 section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182 . Thi 17 bench opinion is made pursuant to the authorit y 18 granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 19 Ardran S . Taylor appeared pro se . Jennifer 20 K . Martwick appeared on behalf of Respondent . 21 In a notice'of deficiency dated December 15, 22 2008 (the notice), Respondent determined a deficiency 23 in and additions to tax with respect to Petitioner's 24 2006 Federal income tax . 25 The issues for decision are : (1) whether Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 3 1 Respondent erred with respect to any of th e 2 adjustments to income shown in the notice ; (2) whether 3 Petitioner is liable for the additions to tax imposed 4 in the notice ; and (3) whether the positions taken and 5 maintained by Petitioner in this proceeding subjec t 6 him to the imposition of a section 6673 penalty . 7 Some of the facts in this case have bee n 8 deemed to have been stipulated pursuant to Rule 91(f) 9 and those facts are so found . Petitioner holds a B .S . 10 degree in biology . At the time the petition was filed 11 he resided in Georgia . 12 During 2006 Petitioner worked as an 13 independent contractor for various insuranc e 14 companies, including Axa, Kaiser Foundation Health of 15 Georgia, Inc ., Unum Life Insurance Company of America, 16 Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Principa l 17 Life Insurance Company and Humana, Inc . The amounts 18 of compensation he received for the services rendered 19 to those companies are set forth in the stipulation 20 and need not be repeated here . He also received a 21 retirement/pension distribution of $8,365 from Axa in 22 2006 . 23 Because Petitioner did not file a 200 6 24 Federal income tax return, Respondent first learned 25 that Petitioner received the various amounts of income Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 attributed to him in the notice (the omitted income 2 items) from information reports filed by the various 3 payors listed above . The omitted income items ar e 4 taken into account in the computation of Petitioner's 5 2006 Federal income tax .liability shown on a retur n 6 prepared pursuant to section 6020(b), as well as i n 7 the notice . No Federal income tax was withheld by any 8 of the payors of the omitted income, and Petitione r 9 made no payment towards his 2006 Federal income tax 10 liability . As with 2006, Petitioner failed to file a 11 Federal income tax return for 2005, although he was 12 otherwise obligated to do so . 13 Nothing in the petition filed in this case, 14 or in Petitioner's presentation at trial suggests that 15 any of the adjustments made in the notice have been 16 made in error . To the extent that Petitioner take s 17 the position that the omitted income items, or any one 18 of them, do not constitute income, his position i s 19 rejected without further comment . To the extent he 20 takes the position that the notice is somehow o r 21 another invalid, as he has done in previou s 22 proceedings before this Court and argues in his post- 23 trial brief filed earlier today, that position i s 24 rejected for the same reasons previously explained to 25 him . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 With respect to the additions to tax imposed 2 in the notice of deficiency, we simply note, as w e 3 have done in one of his previous cases, that evidence 4 supports Respondent's burden of production wit h 5 respect to the imposition of those additions . See 6 section 7491(c) . Furthermore, Petitioner, here, a s 7 before, not only failed to challenge the imposition of 8 the additions to tax in the petition, he has provided 9 no valid reason for his failure to file a 2006 Federa l 10 income tax return, or his failure to pay the tax shown 11 on the section 6020(b) return prepared by Respondent . 12 We see little point in burdening this bench opinio n 13 with any further discussion on the points . Petitioner 14 simply refuses voluntarily to satisfy the obligations 15 imposed upon him under the Internal Revenue Code . 16 Explaining those obligations to him and th e 17 consequences for his failure to do so, as we have done 18 in past cases, obviously has no effect . 19 The deficiency determined and the additions 20 to tax imposed in the above-referenced are sustained . 21 Respondent has requested the imposition of a 22 section 6673 penalty in this case . Respondent points 23 out that the position taken by Petitioner in this case 24 with respect to the omitted income items is the same 25 position taken by Petitioner and rejected by thi s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Court in previous cases involving years prior to the 2 year in issue in this case . In one of those cases, 3 Judge Wells specifically warned Petitioner that the 4 arguments advance by him in that .case, which are the 5 same as the arguments that Petitioner advances here , 6 are frivolous . Judge Wells further advised Petitioner 7 that continuing to make similar arguments in futur e 8 cases could subject him to a $25, .000 penalty under 9 section 6673 . 10 Petitioner's position that the notice i s 11 invalid for the reasons he advances here is frivolous, 12 as he was previously advised . His position on the 13 point has been expressly rejected in three other Tax 14 Court cases that he initiated . The reasons for the 15 rejections have been explained in-detail in at least 16 two of those cases . Petitioner is highly educated . 17 He obviously must have known that the positions he has 18 taken in this case would be rejected as well . Tha t 19 being so, we find that Petitioner, armed with th e 20 knowledge that his positions are frivolous, initiated 21 and continued to prosecute this case primarily fo r 22 delay . Consequently, he is subject to a section 6673 23 penalty . 24 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 25 entered for Respondent in which a $5,000 section 6673 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 penalty will be imposed . 2 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 3 fact and opinion in this case . 4 (Whereupon , at 1 :30 p .m ., the bench opinion 5 in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 // 15 // 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888