                        T.C. Memo. 1997-182



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               HELENA CULVER FRASER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 18668-95.                     Filed April 15, 1997.


     Helena Culver Fraser, pro se.

     Andrew P. Crousore, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     GERBER, Judge:   Respondent determined deficiencies in

petitioner's Federal income and self-employment taxes and

additions to tax as follows:
                               - 2 -

                                      Additions to Tax
     Year       Deficiency     Sec. 6651(f)     Sec. 6654(a)
     1991         $11,376         $6,933             $34
     1992          15,885          9,727             553
     1993          23,398         17,549             981

     After concessions, the issues for decision are:   (1) Whether

petitioner failed to report wages from her employment, interest

income, and unemployment compensation, and (2) whether petitioner

is liable for additions to tax under section 6654(a)1 for her

failure to pay estimated taxes.   Respondent has conceded that

petitioner is not liable for the additions to tax under section

6651(f).

Procedural Background

     On August 19, 1996, respondent filed a Motion to Show Cause

pursuant to Rule 91(f) as to why facts and evidence set forth in

her proposed stipulation of facts should not be accepted as

established.   On September 17, 1996, petitioner filed a response

to this Court's order to show cause.   After due consideration,

this Court ordered on September 20, 1996, that facts and evidence

set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation of facts were

deemed to be established for purposes of this case.

Facts Deemed Admitted

     At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner

resided in Visalia, California.   During 1991 and 1992, petitioner


     1
       All section and subtitle references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in issue, and all
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure, unless otherwise designated.
                               - 3 -

worked as a physician's assistant for multiple employers and

received wages in the amounts of $50,882 and $67,131,

respectively.   During 1991, 1992, and 1993, petitioner earned

nonemployee compensation from her self-employment as a

physician's assistant in the amounts of $3,500, $2,115, and

$71,291, respectively.   In addition, petitioner received

unemployment compensation in the amount of $920 in 1992 and

interest income in the amount of $12 in 1991.   In total,

petitioner received income during the years in issue as follows:

                Year                     Amount
                1991                     $54,382
                1992                      69,246
                1993                      71,291

     Petitioner did not file income tax returns for any of the

years in issue, nor was any tax withheld or paid on income that

she earned in those years.

Discussion

     Petitioner argues that her income was from her employment

and falls under the provisions of subtitle C.   This Court lacks

jurisdiction in matters arising under subtitle C.    Sec. 7442;

Judd v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 652-653 (1980).    Accordingly,

petitioner contends that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over

this case.   Subtitle C imposes employment tax on wages of

individuals required to be withheld by employers which is in

addition to income tax imposed by subtitle A.   Subtitle A imposes

an income tax on an individual's taxable income, determined from

gross income.   Section 61(a) defines gross income as "income from
                                 - 4 -

whatever source derived," including compensation for services and

interest income.   Sec. 61(a)(1), (4).    In addition, section 85

includes unemployment compensation in gross income.     Respondent

determined petitioner's deficiencies for the years in issue under

subtitle A, to which the deficiency notice procedures apply.

Sec. 6211(a).   Respondent issued a notice of deficiency, and

petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a

petition in response to that notice of deficiency.     Rule 13(a),

(c); Levitt v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 437, 441 (1991).

     Petitioner also contends that we lack jurisdiction because

the notice of deficiency issued by respondent was invalid.

Petitioner bases her claim of the invalidity of the deficiency

notice on the ground that respondent did not make a determination

of her deficiency as required by section 6212, citing Scar v.

Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855

(1983).   Section 6212(a) authorizes the Commissioner to mail a

notice of deficiency to a taxpayer after determining a

deficiency.

     The Commissioner must consider information relating to a

particular taxpayer to make her determination of a deficiency

with respect to that taxpayer.     Scar v. Commissioner, supra at

1368.   A presumption exists that the Commissioner made a

determination if the notice reveals that the deficiency was based

on information relating to the taxpayer.     Clapp v. Commissioner,

875 F.2d 1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1989).     Absent exceptional
                                 - 5 -

circumstances, we will not look behind a notice of deficiency to

examine the evidence used by the Commissioner in her

determination.   Id.

     Respondent considered reliable information that related to

petitioner in particular.   Attachments to the deficiency notice

identify petitioner's employers and other sources of income.

Nothing on the face of the notice of deficiency indicates that

respondent failed to make a determination with respect to

petitioner's tax liability.   We find that respondent satisfied

the requirements of section 6212, and the notice of deficiency

issued to petitioner is valid.     Thus, we have jurisdiction over

this case.

     Despite petitioner's extensive and well-written arguments on

brief, the factual allegations deemed admitted under Rule 91(f)

establish that petitioner had income for the years in issue which

she failed to report.   In addition, petitioner did not present

any evidence contesting respondent's determination that she is

subject to self-employment tax under section 1401.    We sustain

respondent's determination as to the deficiencies in petitioner's

Federal income and self-employment taxes.

     Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to

make timely estimated income tax payments.    Section 6654(e)

contains exceptions to the application of the addition to tax.

Petitioner bears the burden of proving that she is not liable for

additions to tax.   Rule 142(a).
                                 - 6 -

     Petitioner received taxable income during each of the years

in issue and did not make any estimated tax payments.       Petitioner

has not proven that any of the exceptions to section 6654(a)

apply.   Thus, petitioner is liable for the section 6654(a)

additions to tax for the years in issue.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                         Decision will be entered

                                 for respondent except as to the

                                 additions to tax under section

                                 6651(f).
