- 10 -
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some
colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417
(5th Cir. 1984). Suffice it to say that petitioner is not exempt
from Federal income tax or from the imposition of appropriate
additions to tax, Olsen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-471; see
Abrams v. Commissioner, supra at 406-407. A tax return filed by
a taxpayer is not a condition precedent to the determination of a
deficiency by the Commissioner, Reichenbach v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-369.4
Because the second amended petition fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, we will grant so much of
respondent's motion that moves to dismiss. See Scherping v.
Commissioner, 747 F.2d 478 (8th Cir. 1984).
We turn now to that part of respondent's motion that moves
for an award of a penalty against petitioner under section
6673(a).
As relevant herein, section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax
Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty
not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings
have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for
4 It is unclear whether petitioner's second amended petition
abandoned the argument that "wages are not income". If
petitioner's second amended petition did not abandon this
argument, we observe that both this and other Federal courts have
consistently and uniformly held for many years that wages are
income and that a taxpayer has no basis in his or her labor.
E.g., Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1981-122; see sec. 61(a)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011