- 7 -
payments for the 2000 or 2001 taxable year. Because petitioner
did not file a Federal income tax return for the preceding
taxable years, 1999 and 2000, respondent has met his burden of
producing evidence that petitioner had a required annual payment
of estimated tax for 2000 and 2001. The Court also notes that
petitioner does not fit within any of the exceptions listed in
section 6654(e).7
At trial and in his briefs, petitioner challenges the
additions to tax on the basis that Form 1040 does not comply with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. secs. 3501-
3520 (2000). This meritless argument and others like it have
been rejected repeatedly by this Court and Federal Courts of
Appeals. See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 208 (2006)
(“The Paperwork Reduction Act is not a defense to the addition to
tax under section 6651(a)(1), nor does it create a loophole in
7 Sec. 6654(e) provides two exceptions to the sec. 6654(a)
addition to tax. First, the addition is not applicable if the
tax shown on the taxpayer’s return for the year in question (or,
if no return is filed, the taxpayer’s tax for that year), reduced
for these purposes by any allowable credit for wage withholding,
is less than $1,000. Sec. 6654(e)(1). Second, the addition is
not applicable if the taxpayer’s tax for the full 12-month
preceding taxable year was zero and the taxpayer was a citizen or
resident of the United States. Sec. 6654(e)(2). In light of our
earlier conclusion regarding petitioner’s 2000 and 2001
deficiencies, petitioner is liable for deficiencies for 2000 and
2001 that net of withholding exceed $1,000. Furthermore, in
light of our earlier conclusion regarding petitioner’s liability
for a deficiency for 2000, it has not been shown that petitioner
had no tax liability in 2000. Because petitioner never filed a
Federal income tax return for 1999, it has not been shown that he
had no tax liability for that year.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007