TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Martin Nitschke
Docket Number: 5154-10
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/23/2011
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RMM MARTIN NITSCHKE, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 5154-10 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of January 27, 2011, containing her oral opinion rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on transmit the to the pages of findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 23, 2011 SERVED Feb 24 2011 1. Bench Opinion by Judge Dian L. Kroupa 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Nitschke V. Commissioner Docket No. 5154-10 January 27, 2011 The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinio in this case, and the following represents the Co rt's oral findings of fact and opinion. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made opursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for 2007, the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Martin Nitschke a}peared pro se. Susan Greene appeared on behalf o Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner failed to file a return for 2007, as he has done for several years previously. And as in previous years, Respondent prepared a return for Petitioner under section 6020(b). Respondent computed Petitioner's tax liabilitieå for 2007 based on information returns from thiÁd-party payers that showed Petitioner received $95 219 of wage income for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2007. Respondent determined in the statutory deficiency notit:e that Peti ioner had an $18, 322 deficiency in Federal incom tax for 2007, plus $2, 335.5ó failure to file a dition, an $882.3O failure to pay addition, and a $432 22 failüre to pay estimated income tax addition. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this tourt. Petitioner is no stranger to this Court . He has e daged in a long-term efiance of his Federal income tax obligations . ,Th Court ' s records indicate - that, he may have stopped fi ing tax returns since 2002. Petitioner's argumen s take portions of the Internal Revenue Code, othe Federal Code provisions, the Constitution, and United States Supreme Court opinions out of context . P titioner' s arguments are similar to tax-protester arguments that have -been rejected^thie and other courts e See generally Carillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2OO4-290.2 Petitioner has the burden 'of: demonstrating that Respondent's determinations are meritless. See Kling v.Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-78 Petitioner objected to, every statement or ruling the Court made duri calendar call and the. trial on the merits. Petit oner refused to testify on the grounds that the Fifth Amendment protects him from Heritage Report g 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 25 4 testifying.. We reminded Pe itioner that he filed the petition and that he has the obligation to prosecute his case and meet his burden. The Court understood that Petitioner must demonstrate, based on his arguments, that the IRS is committing a fráud upon cit zens by fabricating income to them. We find that Petitioner has failed to meet his búžden, and we sustain all of Respondent's determinations in the- defic ency notice, including the late. filing and payment additions because Petitioner failed to establish that he had reasonable cause in failing to comply with his reporting: and payment obligat ions for 2007. In addition, . Respondent-orally moved for impositions of ther section 6 7/3 penaltyi Section 6673 authorizes the Tax Court to impose a penalty up to $25, 000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless. The Court imponed a section 6673 penalty on Petitioner of $500 in docket number 586-02, $2,500 in docket number 6510-04 a d $10, 000 in docket number 696-07L regarding previous ases before this Court. I In. each case as is here, we warned Petitioner again and again that bringing his action could subject him Heritage Report.ing 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 25 5 to larger penalties. Petitioner continues to defy | this Court and he has peÉsi ied with his frivolous arguments despite- these warnings. Petitioner's tact cs have consumed valuable Government resources. Thes tactics should not be condoned. They damage the ntegrity of the Federal tax litigation system. The time and attention the Court and Respondent must d vote to these frivolous arguments deprives other taxpayers with genuine controversies. See Abrams . Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 412 (1984) . We are mindful that Petitioner is representing himself, but h has been warned many times that his baseless arg ments could subject him to additional penalties. Pro be status is not a license to litter the dockets of thÄ -Federal courts with ridiculous allegations concèžning the Code . Parker v. Commissioner, 117 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 1997) . Petitioner deserv s a penalty under section 6673(a) (1), and that penalt should be substantial, if it is to have the desired d terrent effect. Cf. Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, affd. without published opinion 1$1 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996). The purpose of section.6673 is to -compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled tax principles. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 Heritage Reportång 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 25 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986) We have imposed penalties- on Pet itioner in his previous cases below the $25, 000 ceiling amount o prompt Petitioner to conform his conduct to his Federal tax obligations. It was in vain. We also not e that the Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit affiraed our determinations regarding the imposition of section 6673 penalties on Petitioner regarding earlie years. Nitschke v. Commissioner, 92 Fed. Appx. 529 (9th Cir. 2004) , Nitschke v. Commissioner, 3 2 Fed. Appx. 173 (5th Cir. 2009) . We are confident th t Petitioner was aware of the substantial consequences of his actions . Based on the totality of the years ar d his consistent unheeded warnings from this Court an two other Federal courts, we shall therefore require etitioner to pay the maximum $25, 000 penalty under section 6673 (a) (1) . To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for Respondent and n order issued, granting Respondent's oral motion to impose sanctions of $25,000 against Petitioner inder section 6673 for 2007. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon at 10 : 4 4 a m. , the bench opinion in the above-entitled matte3d was concluded. ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 -4888 |