Daryl A. Norblom - Page 3

                                                - 3 -                                                 
            Revenue in the amount of $129.  Petitioner failed to file a 1992                          
            Federal income tax return.                                                                
                  Petitioner testified that he worked for Aspen Office                                
            Furniture and Denver Post where he earned "wages" not income                              
            during the taxable year.  Petitioner's contention that he had no                          
            tax liability is based on various tax protester arguments.                                
                  Petitioner is a classic tax protester raising traditional                           
            protester arguments.  Such arguments are repeatedly rejected,                             
            United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981), and                         
            need not be addressed by this Court.  Crain v. Commissioner, 737                          
            F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984);   Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111                         
            (1983); Nieman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-533.                                      
                  The second issue is whether petitioner is liable for the                            
            addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).  Petitioner bears                         
            the burden of proving that respondent's determination is                                  
            incorrect.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).                         
                  Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to                        
            timely file a return, unless the taxpayer establishes: (1) The                            
            failure did not result from "willful neglect"; and (2) the                                
            failure was "due to reasonable cause".  "Willful neglect" has                             
            been interpreted to mean a conscious, intentional failure, or                             
            reckless indifference.  United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241,                             
            245-246 (1985).  "Reasonable cause" requires the taxpayer to                              
            demonstrate that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence                         
            and was nonetheless unable to file a return within the prescribed                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011