TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Joseph Michael Kish
Docket Number: 19515-07
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/17/2009
Pages: 7

S. vjt) - VJPA UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D.C. 2021 7 JOSEPH MICHAEL KISH, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 19515-0 7 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Houston, Texas, on December 1, 2009, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered pursuant to Rule 155 . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date : Washington, D .C . December 17, 2009 SERVED DEC 2 2 7009 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa 2 December 1, 200 9 3 Kish v . Commissioner Docket No . 19515-07 4 THE COURT : THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER 5 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION I N 6 -'CASE AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS TH E 7 COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION . THESE ORAL 8 FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON 9 AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 Oauthority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 12 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 13 Code for 2004 and 2005, the years at issue, and al l 14 Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice 15 and Procedure . 16 Joseph Kish appeared pro se . Gordon Sanz 17 and Randall Durfee appeared on behalf of Respondent . 18 The record establishes that Responden t 19 issued Petitioner two statutory deficiency notices for 20 the years at issue . The deficiency notice for 200 4 21 was issued to Petitioner on July 12, 2007, an d 22 determined a $3,809 deficiency and a $693 .60 accuracy- 23 related penalty against Petitioner under Section 6662 . 24 This deficiency notice was attributable to a retur n 25 Petitioner filed for 2004 but for which he crossed out Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 the "income" portion of the return and asserted that 2 he was not required to file a return for 2004 . 3 The deficiency notice for 2005 was issued to 4 Petitioner on May 30, 2007, and was attributable t o 5 Petitioner failing to file a return for 2005 . 6 Respondent determined a $63,177 deficiency an d 7 multiple additions for failing to file on time and 8 failing to pay on time as well as failing to pa y 9 sufficient estimated taxes for 2005 . Respondent has 10 now conceded that Petitioner did NOT receiv e 11 substantial amounts of non-employee compensation for 12 2005 . 13 Petitioner did receive, however, $23,107 of 14 royalty income in 2004 and $22,344 of royalty income 15 in 2005, along with $3,900 from Brigham Youn g 16 University in 2004 and $2,153 from Woodbury' s 17 Taxidermy in 2004 . Petitioner's taxable income also 18 included dividends during each of the years at issue . 19 At the conclusion of trial, Petitioner informed the 20 Court that he now concedes that he was required to 21 file returns and pay taxes on his royalty income , 22 dividends, BYU income, and taxidermy income for each 23 of the years at issue . 24 He still asserts, however, that he is not a 25 corporation and, therefore, refuses to have any of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Court documents show his name in all caps because h e 2 understands that only corporations have their names in 3 all caps under Texas law . Petitioner also asserts, in 4 various papers submitted to the Court in connectio n 5 with this proceeding, that he is a citizen, not a 6 taxpayer, of this great country . Mr . Kish makes his 7 arguments by taking portions of the Code, th e 8 Constitution, and United States Supreme Court opinions 9 out of context . 10 Petitioner sent several letters t o 11 Respondent, all of which are part of the record i n 12 this case . He uses worn and torn arguments that this 13 Court and other courts have found frivolous an d 14 sanctionable . Petitioner proclaimed in his filings 15 that he filed returns in the past simply because he 16 was misinformed and felt threatened by the Interna l 17 Revenue Service, the IRS . The Court warned Petitioner 18 at calendar call and at the beginning of trial that he 19 was at risk of having the Court impose a penalt y 20 against him under Section 6673 . 21 Petitioner stated that he doesn't have the 22 money to pay the deficiency or the outrageous interest 23 and penalties . He can't do anything to pay whatever 24 amount is due . He is 68 years old, does not liv e 25 lavishly, has no cable TV, and drives a vehicle with Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 320,000 miles . Failing to have the money to pay th e 2 taxes does not mean that there is . no obligation to pay 3 taxes . He stated that he is only looking for the IRS 4 to provide him the statute or law that requires him to 5 file a return and pay taxes . Simply put, Petitione r 6 questions whether the IRS has authority over citizen 7 Petitioner . Simply put, it does ; Sections 61(a) , 8 6001, 6012, and 6072 . 9 Petitioner defied the Court and argued that 10 he had not brought this case for delay purposes o r 11 that he was raising only frivolous arguments . He 12 brought to the Court's attention that he has argued 13 unsuccessfully in Federal District Court that he does 14 not owe taxes . 15 Despite numerous warnings from the Court and 16 from Respondent, Petitioner persisted and wasted this 17 Court's limited time and resources . Respondent' s 18 counsel recommended that $5,000 would be a n 19 appropriate amount given the facts of this case . The 20 Court thought the recommended amount was too lo w 21 because the purpose of Section 6673 is to compel 22 taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to 23 settled tax principles, Coleman v . Commissioner , 791 24 F .2d 68, 71 (7th Circuit, 1986) ; See also Grasselli v . 25 Commissioner , T .C . Memo 1994-581 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Moreover, the penalty should be substantial 2 if it is to have the desired deterrent effect ; Cf . 3 Talmage v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo 1996-114, affirmed 4 without published opinion, 101 F .3d 695 (4th Circuit, 5 1996) . 6 Petitioner's tactics have consumed valuable 7 government resources . These tactics should not b e 8 condoned . They damage the integrity of the Federal 9 tax litigation system because the time and attention 10 the Court and Respondent must devote to thes e 11 frivolous arguments deprives other taxpayers wit h 12 genuine controversies . See Abrams v . Commissioner , 82 13 T .C . 403, 412 (1984) . 14 We are mindful that Petitioner i s 15 representing himself and may not be familiar with all 16 the Court's rules and procedures . Pro se status , 17 however, is not a license to litter the dockets of the 18 Federal courts with ridiculous allegations concerning 19 the Code ; Parker v . Commissioner , 117 F .3d 785 (5t h 20 Circuit, 1997) . 21 The Court was prepared to impose a 22 substantial penalty under Section 6673 agains t 23 Petitioner until it heard that Petitioner has conceded 24 the deficiencies, additions, and penalties . We view 25 this as a sign that perhaps Petitioner has learne d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 from his frivolous and misguided arguments . 2 sincerely hope this to be the case . 3 We, therefore, shall not require Petitioner 4 to pay a penalty under Section 6673(a)(1) at thi s 5 time . Petitioner is warned, however, that the Court 6 will consider imposing a penalty if he returns to the 7 Court and advances similar arguments in the future . 8 We hope that this warning will be more productive i n 9 deterring Petitioner's arguments and making Petitioner 10 comply with his requirement to file a tax return and 11 to report earnings in the future . 12 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 13 entered under Rule 155 . 14 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 15 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 16 (Whereupon, at 4 :05 p .m ., the bench opinion 17 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888