- 5 -
individual, or in a self-employed activity. Petitioner’s
protester arguments have been heard on numerous occasions by this
Court, as well as other courts, and have been consistently
rejected. The Court sees no need to further respond to
petitioner’s arguments with somber reasoning and copious
citations of precedent, as to do so might suggest that his
argument possesses some degree of colorable merit. See Crain v.
Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). In short,
petitioner is a taxpayer subject to the income tax laws, and he
is liable for income tax on the compensation and other income
paid to him during the years in question, none of which was
questioned or denied. His arguments are rejected.
Although not addressed by petitioner at trial, his gross
income for 2001 includes the distribution to him of proceeds of a
qualified pension plan. Sec. 72. Petitioner did not deny that
he received the distribution, and he presented no argument
relating thereto. As noted earlier, the Court considers that
income adjustment as conceded.
With respect to the second issue, section 6651(a)(1)
provides for an addition to tax in the event a taxpayer fails to
file a timely return (determined with regard to any extension of
time for filing), unless it is shown that such failure is due to
reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Petitioner’s
2001 return was received by respondent on April 30, 2002. His
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011