UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Agency decision
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
T.C. Memo. 1997-574
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LONNIE R. LOWMAN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 6694-97.
Filed December 29, 1997.
Lonnie R. Lowman, pro se.
Dennis R. Onnen, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUWE, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to tax as
follows:
Year
Deficiency
1993
1994
1995
$11,183
12,289
9,792
Additions to tax
Sec. 6651(a)(1)
Sec. 6654(a)
$1,068
2,356
1,775
$146
433
371
- 2 Petitioner resided in Basehor, Kansas, when he filed his
petition in this case.
This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 120(a),1 and motion
for imposition of sanctions under section 6673.
A judgment on
the pleadings is appropriate where the pleadings raise no genuine
issue of material fact.
See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403,
408 (1984); Brayton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-664, affd.
without published opinion 923 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1991).
In his petition, petitioner seems to allege that
respondent's determination was improper because the Commissioner
lacked constitutional authority to assess and collect the tax in
issue.
On September 11, 1997, after several unsuccessful
attempts to schedule a conference with petitioner, respondent
sent requests for admission to petitioner, and on October 3,
1997, respondent received petitioner's response.
On October 2,
1997, petitioner served a request for admissions on respondent.
Petitioner's answers to respondent's requests for admission
were evasive and unresponsive.
In response to respondent's
request that petitioner admit that he was a resident of Basehor,
Kansas, petitioner admitted he dwells in Basehor, Kansas, but
denied he was a resident "for want of [the] meaning of the term."
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
taxable years in issue.
- 3 In response to respondent's request that petitioner admit that he
received wages from the U.S. Postal Service during the years
1993, 1994, and 1995 in the amounts of $50,366, $45,454, and
$47,681, respectively, petitioner argued that Federal Reserve
notes do not represent money and also denied the requested
admission "for want of [the] meaning of '$'."2
Upon request for
admission that petitioner had failed to file income tax returns
for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995, petitioner responded by
stating that he was not required to file income tax returns.
The arguments presented by petitioner have been rejected
repeatedly over the years and are entirely without merit.
It is
well settled that wages received in exchange for services
rendered constitute taxable income, Beard v. Commissioner, 82
T.C. 766, 770 (1984), affd. per curiam 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir.
1986), and that Federal Reserve notes constitute legal tender
which must be reported on a taxpayer's Federal income tax return.
United States v. Weir, 679 F.2d 769, 770 (8th Cir. 1982).
The
constitutional claim asserted by petitioner is equally without
merit and warrants no further discussion.
See McCoy v.
2
Petitioner also denied respondent's request that he admit
receipt of interest income, income tax refund, dividend income, a
distribution from a retirement plan, and capital gain income for
the years in issue "for want of [the] meaning of the term '$'."
Generally, a party's evasive or incomplete response to
requests for admission is treated as a failure to respond. Rules
90, 104(d); see, e.g., Cochrane v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 18, 2324 (1996).
- 4 Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027, 1029-1030 (1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234
(9th Cir. 1983).
On the basis of petitioner's responses to respondent's
requests for admission, petitioner's own request for admissions,
and petitioner's response to respondent's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, it is clear that petitioner's entire position is
based on his frivolous constitutional argument and his theory
that Federal Reserve notes do not represent money, dollars, or
legal tender.
No useful purpose would be served by affording the
parties further hearing on this matter.
Finally, we must consider respondent's motion for imposition
of sanctions under the provisions of section 6673.
Section
6673(a)(1) allows this Court to award a penalty not in excess of
$25,000 when proceedings have been instituted or maintained
primarily for delay, or where the taxpayer's position 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.
Coleman
v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986); Sicalides v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-164.
We have awarded such a
penalty in other cases in which taxpayers have raised the same
tax protester type arguments as does petitioner.
See, e.g.,
Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 905-906 (10th Cir. 1986),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-154; Koch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988499; Fedele v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-569; Hartman v.
- 5 Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-482.
In our opinion, such a
penalty is appropriate in this case.
Under these circumstances,
we award a penalty in the amount of $1,000 to the United States.
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.