James Anthony Johnson - Page 9




                                         -9-                                          
               We sustain respondent's determination that petitioner is               
          liable for the addition to tax for failure to file a return under           
          section 6651(a) for 1994.                                                   
          D.   Petitioner's Frivolous Arguments                                       
               Petitioner contends that he was not the taxpayer named in              
          the notice of deficiency because the name on the deficiency                 
          notice was spelled in capital letters, and that corporations, not           
          individuals, spell their names with capital letters.  Petitioner            
          offered his birth certificate into evidence to prove that he was            
          a live citizen.  We did not admit it into evidence because                  
          petitioner's contention relating to the spelling of his name was            
          frivolous.  Petitioner also alleged (without explanation) that he           
          did not receive due process, that the tax system is voluntary so            
          that he cannot be forced to comply, and that respondent has the             
          burden of proof.  At trial, the Court advised petitioner that he            
          had the burden of proof and reminded him that he had presented no           
          evidence to meet that burden.                                               
               Petitioner's arguments are frivolous and have been                     
          repeatedly rejected by this Court and others, including the U.S.            
          Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the court to which an               
          appeal would lie in this case).  See, e.g., Wilcox v.                       
          Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) (placing the              
          burden of proof on the taxpayer does not violate due process),              
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234,            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011