TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Clovus M. Sykes
Docket Number: 20594-13
Judge: Buch
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/07/2015
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CLOVUS M. SYKES, Petitioner, v. KVC ) ) ) ) Docket No. 20594-13. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit with this order to both petitioners and respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in this case that contain the oral findings of fact and opinion that was rendered at the trial session at Washington, D.C. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Ronald L. Buch Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 6, 2015 SERVED Jan 07 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Bench Opinion by Judge Ronald L. Buch December 8, 2014 Clovus M. Sykes v. Commissioner Docket No. 20594-13 THE COURT: SO WITH THAT, THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION, AND THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This opinion is in conformity with Section 7459(b) and Rule 152(a). Mr. Sykes has appeared and presented his arguments as to why he is not subject to tax. The facts in this case are largely not in dispute and are set forth in the stipulation of facts provided by the parties that shows the income that had been paid to 17 Mr. Sykes. 18 The remaining facts to be decided are 19 whether Mr. Sykes filed a return, whether Mr. Sykes 20 21 22 23 24 paid tax, whether Mr. Sykes made estimated tax payments. Respondent has met its burden through providing certificates of official record proving all of those facts. So that having been said, as a general 25 matter, the Commissioner's determinations in a notice 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of deficiency are presumed correct, and it is the taxpayer who bears the burden of proving an error. Rule 142(a), and Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 at 115 (1933). In this case the Petitioner has only offered arguments that this Court has previously held are frivolous. As we said in -- as the Court said in 8 Crain v. Commissioner, "We perceive no need to refute 9 these frivolous arguments with somber reasoning and 10 11 copious citation of precedent. To do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable 12 merit." 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). 13 Notwithstanding those words from the Fifth 14 Circuit, I have taken some time on the record to 15 16 17 18 19 20 explain to Mr. Sykes why he is in error in his view of the law, and I hope he will take those into consideration in the future. Unfortunately, as we also said in Wnuck v. Commissioner, folks often don't heed these kind of arguments. And as we said in that case, it's doubtful whether tax jurisprudence will be 21 much advanced by issuing yet another opinion 22 23 24 25 affirming the obvious truisms about tax law. That's 136 T.C. 498 at 511 (2011). I'll also add a citation to one other case that addresses many of the arguments presented by 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 Mr. Sykes. And that's Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. 2 Memo.2014-35. That opinion was issued on February 3 4 5 27th, 2014. So on the issues for which Commissioner bears the burden, that burden has been met. And 6 Petitioner has -- again, there're no facts in dispute 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 as to the liability. So the Court will enter decision for Respondent. That leaves -- MS. ULMER: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, Ms. Ulmer. MS. ULMER: Respondent did concede IRC -- addition to tax, IRC Section 6651(a)(2), failure to pay, and -- THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that clarification, Ms. Ulmer. So even with that concession, I believe the Court can enter a decision in conformity with that concession. But that does leave the question of the penalties under Section 6673. If I am correct in my review of the Tax 22 Court's records, we have, I think, three times 23 24 25 imposed a full $25,000 penalty, Mr. Sykes, and it doesn't seem to have helped. I'm hoping my having taken some time on the record this morning to go 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 through Sections 1441, 3402, 6041, Section 1, and Section 911, and clarified those for you might do some good in the future. So with that hope, I will impose a sanction under Section 6673. I will not impose it for $25,000. I'll impose it for $5000 and ask and hope that you further review these provisions. I will provide this added caution -- that the fact that I have imposed a reduced penalty does not prevent a 10 court of appeals from imposing a penalty of its own, 11 which is a significant risk in this case. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So with that, this matter is concluded. We'll go off the record. (Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com