                           T.C. Memo. 2002-4



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 RICHARD E. MARKS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 4218-00.                       Filed January 8, 2002.



     Richard E. Marks, pro se.

     Andrew J. Wyman, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     DINAN, Special Trial Judge:     Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $3,240, an

addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $162, and an

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $648, for the

taxable year 1996.   Unless otherwise indicated, section

references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
                               - 2 -

year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules

of Practice and Procedure.

     Petitioner resided in Morro Bay, California, on the date the

petition was filed in this case.

     Petitioner untimely filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual

Income Tax Return, on October 20, 1997, for taxable year 1996.

He reported $15,043 in business income, but did not include with

the form a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business.    He claimed

no deductions, but stated on the return that he had zero taxable

income.   Attached to his return was a “Tax Analysis Statement” in

which he made numerous arguments, primarily to the effect that

there is no law causing him to be liable for Federal income

taxes.

     Respondent issued petitioner a statutory notice of

deficiency, calculating his tax liability based upon his reported

income as follows:

          Business income                    $15,043
          Standard deduction                  (4,000)
          Personal exemption deduction        (2,550)
          Self-employment tax deduction       (1,063)
          Taxable income                       7,430

          Income tax                           1,114
          Self-employment income tax           2,126
          Total tax liability (deficiency)     3,240

Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for the

addition to tax and penalty noted above.
                               - 3 -

     Petitioner filed a petition with this Court in which he

provided the following statement as his disagreement with

respondent’s determinations in the notice of deficiency:

     (1) The District Director issued a Statutory Notice of
     Deficiency claiming petitioner had a tax liability without
     there being a statutorily procedural correct lawful tax
     assessment. (2) Attached to the Notice of Deficiency, IRS
     Form 4549A, income tax examination changes, line 11 states,
     “Total Corrected Tax Liability.” Respondent has failed to
     provide the petitioners with the internal revenue code
     section or regulation that was used to calculate this total
     corrected tax liability. (3) The respondent has failed to
     provide the petitioners with certified assessment
     information as per Internal Revenue Regulation 301.6203-1.
     (4) Respondent has failed to identify the individual who
     will certify to the tax adjustments the determination was
     based on. Therefore, the deficiency is unenforceable as the
     determination was based on unfounded evidence. (5) There
     can be no meaningful administrative hearing until respondent
     provides petitioner with the above requested information,
     and until that time, petitioner will disagree with all of
     the adjustments.

The language of the petition is very similar to the language of

the petitions in other cases before this Court in which

petitioner was involved.   Petitioner appeared before the Court in

his capacity as officer of the corporate trustee of six trusts in

six separate docketed cases.   In our opinion in those cases, Funk

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-169, we found that the petitions

in those cases failed to comply with Rule 34(b)(4) and (5).    Rule

34(b)(4) requires that the petition set forth “Clear and concise

assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges

to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination

of the deficiency or liability.”   Rule 34(b)(5) requires that the
                               - 4 -

petition set forth “Clear and concise lettered statements of the

facts on which petitioner bases the assignments of error”.    We

dismissed each of the cases involved in Funk v. Commissioner,

supra, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted.   In addition, we required each of the trusts to pay a

section 6673(a)(1) penalty in the amount of $1,000.    Section

6673(a)(1) allows this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the

United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 where it appears

to the Court either that a taxpayer has instituted or maintained

a proceeding before the Court primarily for delay, or that the

taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is frivolous or

groundless.

     In the present case, prior to trial petitioner moved to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and at trial he

moved for summary judgment.   Both of these motions contained

frivolous arguments and were denied.    Petitioner provided no

factual evidence at trial, instead relying upon a reiteration of

the frivolous arguments contained in the petition, motions, and

other correspondence to the Court.     These frivolous arguments do

little more than recite code sections and case law which are

irrelevant, taken completely out of context, or are otherwise

misapplied.   In this case, as in Funk v. Commissioner, supra, “We

perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning

and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that
                                - 5 -

these arguments have some colorable merit.”    Id. (quoting Crain

v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. an Order of

this Court).

     Petitioner has again failed to comply with Rule 34(b)(4) and

(5) by failing to set forth in his petition any justiciable claim

or facts related thereto.    Neither were any such claims or facts

raised or alleged at trial or at any other time in this

proceeding.    Petitioner introduced not one iota of credible

evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to

ascertaining the tax liability in issue.1   Furthermore, it is

clear that petitioner has brought this frivolous case solely for

purposes of delay and for the advancement of his personal views.

We will therefore dismiss this case and enter a decision against

petitioner under Rule 123(b).    Rule 123(b) provides:

         For failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute
     or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court
     or for other cause which the Court deems sufficient,
     the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a
     decision against the petitioner. The Court may, for
     similar reasons, decide against any party any issue as
     to which such party has the burden of proof, and such
     decision shall be treated as a dismissal for purposes
     of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Rule.


     1
          Because petitioner failed to introduce any credible
evidence, he failed to meet the requirements of sec. 7491(a), as
amended, so as to place the burden of proof on respondent with
respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining liability
for the tax deficiency in issue. As to the addition to tax and
accuracy-related penalty, we find that respondent has satisfied
his burden of production under sec. 7491(c) because the record
shows that petitioner’s return was filed late. Higbee v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438 (2001).
                                 - 6 -

In addition, we exercise our discretion under section 6673(a)(1)

and require petitioner to pay a penalty to the United States in

the amount of $3,000.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         An appropriate order will

                                 be issued, and a decision will be

                                 entered for respondent.
