- 10 -
petitioner may have received, a minimal amount of research would
have demonstrated the frivolousness of his arguments and that
these arguments repeatedly have been rejected by the courts.
See, e.g., Brunner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-187, affd.
per curiam __ Fed. Appx. __ (3d Cir., July 21, 2005).
Furthermore, petitioner admitted that the joint returns for the
prior years 1998 and 1999 were accurate and correct. This
admission conflicts with his alleged “beliefs” as to filing
returns for 2000 and 2001.
At trial, the Court advised and admonished petitioner that
the Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and
the other U.S. Courts of Appeals previously and repeatedly had
rejected the arguments espoused by petitioner and had ruled that
his arguments were frivolous. Petitioner stated that he was
aware that some of the arguments that he raised had been ruled on
and rejected by the courts.
Having had the opportunity to observe petitioner, we find
petitioner’s claims that he did not “believe” he was required to
file returns, that he did not owe the deficiencies or additions
to tax, and that he relied on “experts” for the years in issue
not credible. Petitioner’s failure to file was not due to
reasonable cause; his failure to file was due to willful neglect.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determinations that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011