TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Richard D. Holland
Docket Number: 30663-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/16/2010
Pages: 5

NI! UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 RICHARD D . HOLLAND, Petitioner, v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL . REVENUE, Respondent . Docket No . 30663-09 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 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 St . Louis, Missouri, on June 22, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . July 16, 2010 G. 'SERVED JUL 2 0 2010 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Holland v . Commissioner Docket No . 30663-0 9 June 22, 201 0 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l findings of fact and opinion in this case , and the following represents the Court' s oral findings of fact and opinion . Section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, i n effect for the relevant period . Rule-references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Pursuant to an Order dated March 4 , 2010, thi s case for the redetermination of deficiencies is assigne d pursuant to the provisions of Section 7443A(b)(3) of th e Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and is conducte d in accordance with Rules 180, 181, and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t Rules of Practice and Procedure . This case is before the Court on respondent' s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Whic h Relief Can Be Granted, filed, January 27, 2010 . Petitioner's objection to respondent' s motion was file d March 2, 2010 . A hearing was conducted on respondent' s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 motion on June 21 , 2010 in St . Louis, Missouri . Susan K .' 2 Bollman appeared on behalf of respondent and presente d 3 argument in support of the motion . There was no appearance 4 by or on behalf of petitioner , who resided in Missouri a t 5 the time the petition was filed . 6 In the notices of deficiency each dated Septembe r 7 21, 2009, respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to tax with respect to petitioner ' s 2003, 2005 , 9 and 2006 Federal income taxes ( the notice or notices) . 10 According to each notice , petitioner received wage and other 11 income in amounts sufficient to have obligated him to file a 12 Federal income tax return for each year . According to each 13 notice , he failed to do so . 14 In a petition filed in response to the notices , 15 petitioner challenges the determinations made in each notice 16 because , according to petitioner , ( 1) the notices were not 17 prepared on proper forms, and (2 ) as he put it "the term 18 'income' as used in the income tax act past and present, " 19 "means , comprehends or embraces a gain or profit realized by 20 an artificial entity " through conversion or sale of capital 21 assets . 22 With respect to the adjustments shown in each 23 notice , the petition contains neither any specifi c 24 assignment of error nor supporting allegation of fact in 25 support of any such assignment . See Rule 34 ; Gordon v . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 Commissioner , 73 T .C . 736, 739 (1980) . The failure of a 2 petition to conform to the requirements set forth in Rule 34 3 may be grounds for dismissal . Rule 34(a)(1), 123(b) . 4 The petition in this case hardly satisfies the 5 requirements of Rule 34(b) . Instead, statements containe d in the petition suggest that petitioner intends to advance frivolous positions that need not be addressed . See Crain 8 v . Commissioner , 737 F . 2d 1417 (5th Cir . 1984) . By order dated February 5, 2010, petitioner was 10 invited to cure the defective petition by submitting an 11 amended petition . This he has failed to do . By setting 12 respondent's motion for hearing, petitioner was, in effect, 13 . given yet another chance to respond to adjustments made in 14 the notices . He failed to appear at the hearing . 15 Nothing in the petition suggests that respondent 16 erred with respect to any specific adjustment made in any of 17 the notices . Nothing in the petition suggests that 18 petitioner is entitled to any deduction not taken into 19 account in any of the notices . Instead, the petition 20 contains citations to various authorities, which, a s 21 petitioner apparently views the matter, support his position 22 that wages and interest earned are not "income as that term 23 is used in the Internal Revenue Code . Simply put, he is , 24 wrong on that point . See Section 61(a)(1),(4) ; 25 Commissioner v . Glenshaw Glass Co . , 348 U .S . 426 (1955) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 In considering respondent's burden, as the movant, 2 to establish entitlement to the relief requested in th e 3 motion here under consideration, see Hicks v . Small , 69 F .3d 4 967, 969 (9th Circuit 1995), we note that the manner i n 5 which petitioner has elected to proceed has eliminated what 6 otherwise would have been respondent's burden with respec t 7 to the additions to tax imposed in the notices . See Section 8 7491(c) ; Funk v . Commissioner , 123 T .C . 213, 217-218 (2004), 9 Swain v . Commissioner, 118 T .C ., 363-365 (2002) . 10 After careful and repeated reviews of th e 11 petition, giving petitioner the benefit of every doubt, we 12 are satisfied that its contents give rise to no justiciable 13 issue . It follows that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for 14 Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 15 should and will be granted . 16 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order and 17 decision will issued . 18 This concludes the Court's oral finding of fact 19 and opinion in this case . 20 (Whereupon, at 1 :50 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 21 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888