Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль

Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / JONATHAN HARRIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, UNITED STATES TAX COURT - MEMORANDUM DECISION, T.C. Memo. 2006-275, Docket No. 7754-06., Filed December 27, 2006

JONATHAN HARRIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, UNITED STATES TAX COURT - MEMORANDUM DECISION, T.C. Memo. 2006-275, Docket No. 7754-06., Filed December 27, 2006




T.C. Memo. 2006-275

Docket No. 7754-06.

Filed December 27, 2006.

Jonathan Harris, pro se.

Frederick J. Lockhart, Jr. , for respondent.


LARO, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673 as supplemented. 1 Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 2000, 2001, or 2002. Respondent prepared a Form 4549A, Income Tax Examination Changes, and issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency dated January 23, 2006, that determined the following deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax and additions to tax:


1 ═ Section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. ═


With regard to the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for each year, the note marked by the "*" stated that "The amount of the addition to tax cannot be determined at this time, but an addition to tax of .5 percent will be imposed for each month, or fraction thereof, of nonpayment, up to 25 percent, based on the liability shown on this report."

Petitioner, while residing in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, timely petitioned this Court. In his petition, petitioner denies being a "subject" liable to tax and argues, among other things, that he has, by his actions, relinquished his "subject" status of "U.S. citizenship" and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to impose a penalty under section 6673. The motion was calendared for a hearing at a September 11, 2006, session of the Court in Denver, Colorado. Petitioner failed to appear when the case was called.

Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error that the petitioning taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of any deficiency, addition to tax, or penalty in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that the petition shall contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which the taxpayer bases the assignments of error. See Funk v. Commissioner , 123 T.C. 213, 215 (2004); Jarvis v. Commissioner , 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). Any issue not raised in the pleadings is deemed to be conceded. See Rule 34(b)(4); Funk v. Commissioner , supra at 215. Further, the failure of a party to plead or otherwise proceed as provided in the Court's Rules may be grounds for the Court to hold such party in default, either on the motion of another party or on the initiative of the Court. See Rule 123(a); Meeker v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2005-146; Ward v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2002-147. The Court also may dismiss a case and enter a decision against a taxpayer for the failure properly to prosecute or to comply with the Rules of this Court. See Rule 123(b); Meeker v. Commissioner , supra ; Ward v. Commissioner , supra .

We agree with respondent that petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Funk v. Commissioner , supra at 216-217; Meeker v. Commissioner , supra . Petitioner has failed to present the Court with a petition containing clear and concise assignments of error that petitioner alleges the Commissioner has committed in the determination of the deficiency or the additions related thereto. Petitioner has likewise failed to include in his petition clear and concise statements of the facts on which he bases his assignments of error. Petitioner's petition contains only the type of frivolous arguments that have been repeatedly made and rejected by this and other courts. See, e.g., Funk v. Commissioner , supra . The petition neither conforms to this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure nor states a claim upon which relief can be based. Due to the absence from the petition of specific justiciable allegations of error and of supporting facts, this Court shall grant respondent's motion. See id .

In respondent's motion, respondent also asks the Court to impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. A taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless if it is "▒contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law.'" Williams v. Commissioner , 114 T.C. 136, 144 (2000) (quoting Coleman v. Commissioner , 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986)). We find that petitioner has advanced frivolous and groundless statements, contentions, and arguments. We further find that petitioner has instituted this proceeding primarily for delay. Under the circumstances presented, we shall impose on petitioner a penalty in the amount of $5,000.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order of dismissal and

decision will be entered for respondent.


Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  


Электронный документ: вчера, сегодня, завтра

Несколько последних публикаций экспертов Synerdocs были посвящены электронным документам в судах и развитию системы электронного правосудия. В настоящей статье хотелось бы подвести некоторый итог и поднять вопрос о будущем электронного правосудия в России. А оно, как вы понимаете, напрямую связано с электронными документами

Чек-лист для проверки электронного документа на юридическую значимость

В этом году мы много говорили о представлении электронных документов в суд, не скупились на советы и рекомендации. При этом давно не поднимали тему юридической значимости. Пожалуй, с этого стоило начать цикл статей про электронное правосудие. Предлагаю обсудить, из чего же складывается юридическая значимость любого документа, и на что стоит обратить внимание при проверке документа на соответствие требованиям действующего законодательства в области ЭДО. Информация будет полезна всем: кто уже работает с электронными аналогами и тем, кто только открывает для себя новую область знаний.