Opinion ID: 506582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: summary affirmance

Text: 2 Appellant seeks review of a Tax Court decision finding him liable for federal income tax deficiencies and penalties for the year 1977. In the Tax Court, appellant contested his tax liability on the ground that the disclosure notices on the Internal Revenue Service tax forms failed to comply with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a. Specifically, appellant argued that the disclosure notice does not contain an exhaustive list of the statutory authority for requiring disclosure of social security numbers on income tax returns. In addition to allegations that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue made 39 errors in calculating appellant's income tax liability, appellant also maintained that his earnings as a ship pilot were not includable in his gross income. 3 The Tax Court rejected the merits of appellant's Privacy Act claim. The Tax Court concluded that the authority cited in the disclosure notice was sufficient and that an exhaustive rendition of the statutory authority for requiring disclosures was not required. 4 The Tax Court found appellant's claims of error in the calculation of his tax liability to be without merit and that appellant failed, indeed refused, to submit any evidence to support his claims of error. The Tax Court entered a decision for the Commissioner. See Billman v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 534 (1984). 5 Appellant filed an appeal from the Tax Court decision in the Eleventh Circuit. That appeal was subsequently transferred here. Following transfer, appellant submitted numerous motions. After reviewing those motions, a prior panel of this court ordered appellant to show cause why this case should or should not be dismissed on the ground of claim preclusion. Alternatively, the panel directed appellant to demonstrate why the Tax Court decision should not be summarily affirmed. Appellant's response having been received, we now review the Tax Court decision from which he appeals. 6 To begin with, we are in complete accord with the Tax Court's conclusion rejecting appellant's Privacy Act claims. As appellant is well aware from his previous appeals, we have determined that the list of statutory authority in the disclosure notice is adequate. 1 See Billman v. IRS, 808 F.2d 137 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 47, 98 L.Ed.2d 12 (1987); Hudgins v. IRS, 808 F.2d 137 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 47, 98 L.Ed.2d 12 (1987). 7 On appeal, appellant focuses on the Tax Court determination concerning the Privacy Act. Hence, the remaining Tax Court determinations that appellant's allegations of error were frivolous and unsupported are not at issue. In any event, we note that, by refusing to submit any evidence to support his allegations, appellant utterly failed to carry his burden before the Tax Court. See Mallette Bros. Construction Co. v. United States, 695 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 935, 104 S.Ct. 341, 78 L.Ed.2d 309 (1983) (Any ... deficiency notice is accompanied by a presumption of correctness which places the burden on the taxpayer of establishing all matters necessary to show that it does not owe the taxes in question.). 8 Because we have previously expressed the same conclusion as the Tax Court on appellant's Privacy Act claims and the remaining Tax Court determinations regarding appellant's allegations of error are susceptible to summary disposition, we affirm the Tax Court's decision upholding the Commissioner's assessments against appellant.