Danney R. Land - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
          not properly authorized to issue notices of deficiency is                   
          frivolous and groundless.  See id. at 165; Goza v. Commissioner,            
          supra.  Likewise, petitioner’s argument that no statute                     
          establishes an individual’s liability for income tax or requires            
          the payment of income tax is frivolous and groundless.  As the              
          Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive           
          no need to refute these arguments 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); see Tolotti v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 2002-86.  Suffice it to say:                                     
               (1) Petitioner is a taxpayer subject to the Federal income             
          tax, see secs. 1(c), 7701(a)(1), (14);                                      
               (2) compensation for labor or services rendered constitutes            
          income subject to the Federal income tax, sec. 61(a)(1); United             
          States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981);                      
               (3) petitioner is required to file an income tax return,               
          sec. 6012(a)(1); and                                                        
               (4) a taxpayer’s failure to report tax on a return does not            
          prevent the Commissioner from determining a deficiency in that              
          taxpayer’s income tax, secs. 6211(a), 6212(a); see Monaco v.                
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-284.                                          
               We likewise reject petitioner’s argument that the Appeals              
          officer failed to obtain verification from the Secretary that the           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011