TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Corey D. White
Docket Number: 24177-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/23/2009
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington, D. C. 20217 N COREY D . WHITE, Petitioner v . Docket No . 24177-0 8 COMMISSIONER OF IN ERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to R le 152(b), Tax Court Ru10.es of Practice an d Procedure, it is ORDERED that he Clerk of the Court stall transmit herewith to petiti ner and to respondent a~copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Judge Thomas B . Wells at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, . on November 20, 2009, containing h s oral findings of fact,and opinion rendered at the conclusion f trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed ) Thomas B. Wells Judge Dated : Washington, D . C . December 2 , 2009 SERVED DEC 2 3 2009 3 Bench Opini on by Judge .Thomas B . Well s November 2 0 2009 White v . C mmissioner Docket No . 24177-08 HE COURT : The Court has decided to rende r oral findinligs of fact and opinion in this case, an d the followi g represents the Court's oral findings of fact and op inion . The oral findings of fact an d '8 opinion sha 11 not be relied upon as precedent in an y 9 other case . 10 T is is the case ; of Corey !D . White , 11 Petitioner, v . Commissioner of Interiinal' Revenue , -12 Respondent , Docke t No .% 24177-08 . This bench opinio n 13 1 4 15 ' 1 6 1 7 1 8 fi is made pursuant to the authority granted by § 7459(d ) and Rule 15 All section, referenc ds are to th e Internal Re venue Code as in .effect'for the year i n issue, and 11 rule, references are the Tax Cour t rules of pr ctice and procedure . Respondent determined a deficiency agains t 19 Petitioner or his 2006 taxable year.. in the amount of 20 x $52,236, an addition to tax under § 6651(a)(1) in the 21 amount of $ ,030 .20, an addition to tax under § 22 6651 (a) (2 ) omputed as of May .2, .2008, in the amount 23 of $1,164 .2 .and an addition to tax under § 6654 i n 24 the amount 6 f $6,1'7 17 . .Additionally ', Responden t iRW 25 orally ha s loved for a penalty against Petitioner Heritage . Reporting Corporation if (202) 628- 4888 1 under, § 66 7 We must decide the following issues : 1 ) Whether Petitioner's-gross income must be increased by .the amounts) determined in the notice'of deficiency ; 2 ) whether Petitioner is liable for the addition to .ta x 3) whether Petitioner is liabl e for, the addition-to tax under,§ 6651(X)(2) ; 4)'whethe r 8 Petitioner is liable ., for the addition to tax under § 9 6654 ; and 5) whether Petitioner should be liable under . 10 _ § 6673 for . penalty,,for making frivolous 11 groundles s rguments-in this case . ne of the facts have-been stipulated ; however, ce tain facts were deemed admitted by orde r of the Cour on .September 19, 2008 . The facts s o 15 deemed adm i ted are incorporated herein by reference 16 and are fo u d accordingly . At the time the petitio n 17 was filed , etitioner was a resident'-of Middletown ; 18 Delaware . general,' Respondent' s, determinations ar e 19. ' entitled to a presumption of correctness, and ' 20 Petitione r ears .the burden of rebutting tha t 21 presumptio n by a preponderance of the evidence . Welch 22 v . Helverin 290 U .S . 111 (1933) ; Rule 142(a) . titioner does not contend that § '7491(a ) in the-instant case to'shift the burde n Respondent,, nor did he establish that it should apply to the instant case . Therefore, th e burden of proof remains on Petitioner . In this case , the Petitioner has failed to provide any credibl e evidence that Respondent's deficiency determination s etitioner .has presented only frivolous and groundles s arguments . Petitioner's'contentions ar e protest;r= type arguments that are without meri t ial they do not warrant discussion . Se e Crain v . CoInmissioner 737 F .2d1417 .(5th Cir . 1984 ) ("We perce i e .no need to refute' thesearguments wit h ning and copious citation of precedent ; to suggest that these arguments have some colorable m rt" ) A cordingly, we hold that Petitioner has, not met hisbu r en of proof with respect' to Respondent' s deficiency etermination . Consequently, we-sustai n _ 13 Respondent ' deficiency determination for the taxable year in issue . to the additions to tax under § 6651 (a)-(I) , Petitioner bears the burden of proof . Rule 142 (a ) Under § 7491(c), Respondent must produc e evidence th t it. is appropriate to impose a penalty ; however, of proof . Higbee this case, the record shows tha t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 Respondent has met the burden of production on thi s issue . Pe itioner failed to offer any credibl e evidence, o this issue . Consequently, we ..sustai n Respondent on the addition to tax under °§ 6651 (a) (*) . -rev/ As to the dditionto tax under § 6651(a)(2), tha t section provides for . an addition to'rtax for failure to . pay the amount shown as tax on .a return on or befor e the payment due date . . 11 he-addition totax"is 0 .5 percent per mont h 10 with an additional 0".5 percent per month for eac h 11 month the failure continues up to .25 percent . 12 instances ere the taxpayer-fails to file a return, 13 . the,return repared by the Commissioner pursuant to § 14 6020(b) shall be treated as the return filed by th e 15 taxpayer fo the purposes of calculating the addition 16 to tax purs ant to,§ 6651(a)(2) Section 6651(g) .(2) . 17 For a return to constitute a§ 6020(b ) 18 return, it ust be subscribed . It must contain 19 sufficient reformation from which to compute the 20 taxpayer's iability, and the return form and an y 21 attachments must purport to be a return . Spurlock v . T .C . Memo . 2003-124 .? Respondent bear s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 n this case, the record contains a 2 substitute return for 2006 . The substitute return i s 3 subscribed and includes a § 6020(b)- .certification; 4 Form 4549, Income Tax Examination, and Form 886-A , 5 Explanatior of Items .\ Those forms are sufficient to 6 compute Pe itioner's tax liabilities . for 2006, and 7 Respondent has certified that the substitute retur n will be treated as a return . Petitioner has not pai d 9 the amount shown . He is liable for the addition to 10 tax under 6651 (a) (2) . 11 As to the addition to tax!under § 6654 , 12 taxpayers are -liable f .or an addition to tax fo r 13 failure to )ay estimated taxes where prepayments o f 14 tax, eitherjthrough .withholding or by making estimate d 15 quarterly payments during the years do not equal th e -raw 16 lesser of 90 percent of the tax :for :,the curren t 17 taxable yea 18 previous t o .19 previous y e 2 0 21 year in iss e is less than $1,000, the individual had . 2.2 no tax lia b lity for the preceding year, or a waiver 23 applies . ction 6654(e) . Respondent bears th e 24 burden of p oduction to show that the taxpayer had a n 25 estimated t x payment obligation,, which includes . Heritage ReportingfCorporation ' (202) 62.8-4888 . whether a r eturn was filed for the preceding year .. Section 749 1(c) ; Wheeler V . Commissioner , 127 T .C . 200, 211-21 (2006), affd . 521 F .3d 1289 (10th Cir . 2008) 'Pe t itioner bears the burden 'of proof . Higbe e v . Commissioner , supra . this case, the record shows tha t Petitioner failed to file, a return for the 2005 an d 2006 taxabl years,., and he was . therefore required t o make estima ed payments equal to 90 percent of,the tax 10 for the yea in issue . Section 6654 (d) (1) (A) , (B) (i ) 11 and (ii ) 12 tax and has failed to show that, any exception applies . 13, Accordingly Petitioner is liable for the addition to 14 tax under 6654 . 15 A to the penalty under § '6673,' (cid:127) § 6673(a)(1) , 16 ' provides th; t this Court may require ; the taxpayer t o 17 pay a penal- y not in excess of $25,000 whenever it 18 appears to his Court that the proceedings .-wer e 19 instituted . ( r maintained by the taxpayer primarily fo r 20 - delay or t h taxpayer's position is frivolous or 21 groundless . Despite being warned repeatedly that hi s 22 positions w re frivolous and groundless, Petitione r 23 continued t advance those positions . Accordingly, w e 24 shall impose a penalty on Petitioner ;;:in the amount o f 25 $10,000 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o reflect the foregoing,, decision will b e entered foi Respondent . The foregoing-represents th e Courts orall .findings of fact and opinion in this case . This concludes this case . Thank you . Whereupon,' at . 10 :31a .m ., the bench opinio n in .the abode-entitled matter was concluded . ) / /. 11 - / / 1 2 13 1 4 / / 15 ' / / 16 / / 1 7 18 / / 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 24 . / / 25 . //