- 5 -
Discussion
I. Deficiency Liability
Petitioner does not challenge either the facts on which
respondent’s determination is based or respondent’s calculation
of tax. In fact, respondent based the computation of the
deficiency on the amounts reported by petitioner on the altered
1040 and the disclaimer 1040. Petitioner, nevertheless, contends
he is not liable for the deficiency. Petitioner claims that (1)
he did not volunteer to self-assess or pay his taxes, and he
therefore cannot be held liable for any deficiency; (2) his
income is not from any of the sources listed in section 1.861-
8(a), Income Tax Regs., and thus is not taxable; and (3) the
notice of deficiency was improperly issued because petitioner
disclaimed the tax liability shown on the return.
Petitioner’s arguments are reminiscent of tax-protester
rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other
courts. We shall not painstakingly address petitioner’s
assertions “with somber reasoning and copious citation of
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some
colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417
(5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is
liable for the deficiency determined by respondent.
II. Accuracy-related Penalty
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an
accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) for his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011