TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Brendan James Trainor
Docket Number: 9783-11
Judge: Vasquez
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/04/2012
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RMM BRENDAN JAMES TRAINOR, Petitioner, Docket No. 9783-11. 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 herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Vasquez at Reno, Nevada, on December 1, 2011, containing his oral the trial. fact and opinion rendered at in the above case before Judge Juan F. the pages of the the trial findings of the conclusion of In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Juan F. Vasquez Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 4, 2012 SERVED Jan 05 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Bench Opinion By Judge Juan F. Vasquez December 1, 2011 Trainor v. Commissioner Docket No. 9783-11 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fac and opinion iÍn this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This is the case of Brendan James Trainor, petitioner,' v. Commissioner of Respondent, in Docket No. 9783-11. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Respondent.determined a $3,690 deficiency in Petitioner's Federa income tax fo 2008, and additions to tax under Section 6651(a) (1) and (a) (2) in the amounts of $452.48 and $201.10, respectively. The stipulations of fact;s and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, Petitioner lived Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888Ü 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in Reno, Nevada. In general, Respondent's dederminations in the notice of deficiency are entitled to a presumption of correctness, and Petitioner bears the burden of rebutting that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); Rule 142(a). Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements of Section 7491(a), and therefore the burden of proof remains on Petitioner. The Court ust decide the following issues: (1) Whether Petitioner received $35,200 in wages from America West Airlines, LLC; (2) whether Petitioner received $1,000 of taxable distributions from Fidelity Investments; (3) whether Petitione i;s liable for an addition to tax und r Section 6651(a)Ì(1) for failure to timely file his Federal income tax return for 2008'; and (4) whether Petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under Section 6651(a) (2) for failure to timely pay his Federal income tax for 200)8. In the instant case, Petitioner has offered no credible evidence that shows that Respondent's determinations are incorrect. At trial, Petitioner refused to testify Âbout any of the issues in the case. When the Court asked Petitioner if he agreed Heritage Reporting 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 to receiving the $35 200 paid to him by America West Airlines, LLC, Petitioner refused to answer the question. However, the parties stipulated that "In taxable year 2008, America West Airlines, LLC, paid Petitioner $35, 200" . Throughout these. proceedings, Petitioner has advanced only frivolous and groundless arguments. For instance, in the petition, page i-v§ , Petitioner alleges that, "Petitioner is no the person alleged to have a deficiency in the NOD (Notice of Deficiency) In his pretrial memorandum, Petitioner argues that Respondent has produced no evidence that U.S. Airways is an entity required to issue a Form W 2 . f f The Court need not address each of Petitioner's frivolous and groundless arguments with somber reasoning and copious citations o.f precedent, as to do so might suggest that these arguments possess some degree of colorable merit. Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011) . In sum, we find that Petitioner's contentions are wholly without merit . Consequently, we sustain Respondent ' s deficiency determination in full. 'As to the failure to.timely file and failure to timély pay additions to tax, Sectìon 7491(c) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 requires that Respondent produce evidènce that. it is appropriate to impose the additions to tax. Once Respondent meets his 4burden of product ion, however, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that .Respondent'.s determinations are incor ect. Higbee V. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438,. 446 (2001); and .Rule 142 (a) . The record shows that Petitioner failed to timely file his Fede al· income tax return for 2008 and failed to timely pay his Federal ir co e tax for' 2008. . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 9 10 11 . Accordingly, Respondent has met hi b rden of . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 production as to the additions to tax The Section 6651(a) (1) ar d (2) additions to tax ar'e. not imposed i_f the taxpaye s1 ows his failure to timely file and fàilure to time y pay are due to reasonable cause and not to willfu n glect. Sec. 6651(a).(1) and (a) (2) . Petitioner re used to testify and thus failed to OEfer any credìBle evidence as to reasonable cause . . Consequently, wë shall (cid:0)541ustain 20 - Respondent's impbsiti.on of the fai ur to timely file 21 22 23 24 . 25 and failure to timely pay additions to tax. Section 66 73 (a) (1) provides{ that this Court may require the taxpayer to pay a enálty not .in excess of $25, 000 - whenever it appedrs to this court that . the proceedings were ïnstitutéd òr maintained by Heritage Reporting Cor or tion (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 the taxpayer primarily for delay, or the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless. Although we refrain from imposing the penalty at this time, we take this opportunity to warn Petitioner that we may impose this penalty if he returns to the Court and proceeds in a similar manner in the future. See Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576. (2000). To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for Respondeht. The foregoing represents the Court's oral findingh of fact and opinion in this case . This concludes the case . Thank you. (Whe reupon, at 10 : 0 9 a . m. , the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888