Robert B. Keenan - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          Once respondent meets his burden of production, petitioner must             
          come forward with evidence sufficient to persuade the Court that            
          respondent’s determination is incorrect.  Id.                               
               Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to           
          file a return on the date prescribed (determined with regard to             
          any extension of time for filing), unless petitioner can                    
          establish that his failure is due to reasonable cause and not due           
          to willful neglect.  The parties stipulated and petitioner                  
          testified that he did not file a Federal income tax return for              
          2000.  We find that respondent has met his burden of production.            
               To show reasonable cause, petitioner must demonstrate that             
          he “exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was                   
          nevertheless unable to file the return within the prescribed                
          time”.  Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.  Petitioner           
          argues that he had reasonable cause for failing to file because:            
          (1) The income tax system is “voluntary”; and (2) the self-                 
          incrimination provision of the Fifth Amendment protects him from            
          being required to file a tax return.                                        
               Arguments relating to the “voluntary” nature of the income             
          tax system have been repeatedly rejected as frivolous or without            
          merit.  See, e.g., Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 295-296            
          (2002); Rinn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-246; Hodge v.                 
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-242; Hicks v. Commissioner, T.C.              
          Memo. 1992-80.  Furthermore, petitioner was previously informed             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011