                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-12



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 GABRIEL T. LEWIS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 15835-04S.            Filed January 30, 2006.



     Gabriel T. Lewis, pro se.

     Tamara L. Kotzker, for respondent.



     PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard

pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal

Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.   The decision

to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this

opinion should not be cited as authority.   Unless otherwise

indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal
                                - 2 -

Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,776 in petitioner’s

Federal income tax for the taxable year 2002 and additions to tax

under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) of $739.35 and $122.01,

respectively.1

     The issues for decision are whether petitioner is (1)

taxable on wage income he received; (2) liable for the addition

to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file a

return; (3) liable for the addition to tax under section 6654(a)

for underpayment of estimated income tax; and (4) liable for a

penalty under section 6673.

                              Background

     This case was submitted fully stipulated.     At the time the

petition was filed, petitioner resided in New York, New York.

     During 2002, petitioner was an employee of TIAA-CREF and

received wage income of $34,840.32.     Petitioner resided in and

worked in New York, New York, for the entire 2002 taxable year.




     1
        Respondent also determined an addition to tax under sec.
6651(a)(2); however, respondent conceded that petitioner is not
liable for said addition to tax. In his pretrial memorandum,
respondent suggests that as the result of his concession of the
sec.6651(a)(2) addition to tax there should be an increase in the
amount of the sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax. Respondent did
not file an answer or otherwise make an appropriate claim for
such increase; accordingly we do not consider any claim for an
increase.
                               - 3 -

     Petitioner failed to file a timely Federal income tax return

for the taxable year 2002.   In April 2004, respondent proposed

adjustments to petitioner’s 2002 taxes.    A notice of deficiency

was issued on May 28, 2004, wherein respondent determined that

petitioner received taxable wage income.

     On April 18, 2005, petitioner submitted to respondent a

proposed Federal income tax return for 2002.   The return reflects

wages of $34,840.32.   On line 21 of the Form 1040, U.S.

Individual Income Tax Return 2002, the identical amount is listed

as a credit or deduction and refers to “Form 2555-EZ”.     Attached

to the return is Form 2555-EZ, Foreign Earned Income Exclusion,

wherein petitioner lists his “foreign address” and his employer’s

“foreign address” as street addresses in New York, New York.

     Petitioner asserts that the wage income he received from

TIAA-CREF for the taxable year 2002 is not subject to Federal

income tax.   In his petition, he states: “I have been blatantly

denied due process of law and the IRS has absolutely no factual

or legal basis for issuing a deficiency in this matter.”

     This case was called for trial at New York, New York.    The

parties submitted a stipulation of facts and, as indicated, they

agreed that there was no need for submission of additional

evidence.   Respondent also filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant

to section 6673.   Petitioner asked for an opportunity to respond

to respondent’s motion for sanctions.   The Court noted on the
                                - 4 -

record that petitioner’s allegations appeared frivolous, and the

Court discouraged petitioner from making additional arguments

similar to those arguments previously made.    With that

admonishment, the Court gave petitioner an opportunity to respond

to respondent’s motion for sanctions.    On June 13, 2005,

petitioner filed a brief wherein he repeats and expands prior

frivolous arguments.

                            Discussion

     Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations set forth in a

notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears

the burden of showing that the determinations are in error.      Rule

142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).      Pursuant

to section 7491, the burden of proof as to factual matters shifts

to the Commissioner if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence

and satisfies the requirement to substantiate items.    Sec.

7491(a)(2)(A).   Petitioner has neither alleged that section

7491(a) applies nor established his compliance with the

requirements of section 7491(a)(2)(A) or (B).    In any event,

there is no factual dispute.2



     2
        As to the additions to tax under secs. 6651(a) and
6654(a), respondent has the burden of production. Sec. 7491(c).
The burden of showing reasonable cause under sec. 6651(a) remains
on petitioner. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-448
(2001). With respect to the sec. 6654(a) addition, the burden
remains with petitioner to establish applicability of any
exceptions. Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-248.
                               - 5 -

1.   Receipt of Wage Income

     Petitioner does not dispute that he received $34,840 from

TIAA-CREF, by whom he was employed.    Petitioner argues that his

wages do not constitute income or that he is exempt from income.

     Section 61(a) defines gross income as “all income from

whatever source derived,” unless otherwise provided.    The Supreme

Court has consistently given this definition of gross income a

liberal construction “in recognition of the intention of Congress

to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.”

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430 (1955); see

also Roemer v. Commissioner, 716 F.2d 693, 696 (9th Cir. 1983)

(all realized accessions to wealth are presumed to be taxable

income, unless the taxpayer can demonstrate that an acquisition

is specifically exempted from taxation), revg. 79 T.C. 398

(1982).   Suffice it to say that petitioner is a taxpayer who is

subject to Federal income tax on his wages and other sources of

income.   See secs. 1(c), 61(a)(1), (11), 7701(a)(1), (14); Nestor

v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 165 (2002), supplemented by T.C.

Memo. 2002-251.   Petitioner presented this Court with frivolous

contentions that merit no discussion.   See Rowlee v.

Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); Hallock v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1983-684.   Thus, we sustain respondent’s determination that

petitioner’s wages constitute gross income.
                                - 6 -

2.   Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1) for Failure To File

     If a Federal income tax return is not timely filed, an

addition to tax will be assessed “unless it is shown that such

failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful

neglect”.   Sec. 6651(a)(1).   A delay is due to reasonable cause

if “the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence

and was nevertheless unable to file the return within the

prescribed time”.   Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.;

see also United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 243 (1985).

     Respondent’s records reflect that petitioner did not file a

timely return for the taxable year 2002.   Petitioner did submit a

return in April 2005.   There is no record of petitioner’s having

filed a request for extension of time to file a return.

     The record contains no evidence, nor has petitioner made any

arguments, to establish reasonable cause for the failure to

timely file.

3.   Addition to Tax Under Section 6654(a) for Failure To Pay

Estimated Tax

     Section 6654(a) provides for an addition to tax “in the case

of any underpayment of estimated tax by an individual”.   This

addition to tax is mandatory unless petitioner shows that one of

the statutorily provided exceptions applies.   Sec. 6654(e);

Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21 (1980).    There is

no exception for reasonable cause or lack of willful neglect.
                               - 7 -

Estate of Ruben v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 1071, 1072 (1960).

     Petitioner did not remit any estimated tax payments for 2002

and has not shown that any of the statutory exceptions are

applicable.   Respondent’s determination as to the addition to tax

under section 6654(a) is sustained.

4.   Section 6673 Sanctions

     As indicated at trial, respondent filed a Motion for

Sanctions to impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section

6673(a)(1).   Petitioner made frivolous arguments in his petition,

at trial, and in a memoranda to this Court.    Petitioner’s brief

only made more groundless arguments in response to respondent’s

Motion.

     Under these circumstances, we see no need to catalog

petitioner’s arguments and painstakingly address them.      As the

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked:      “We

perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning

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

these arguments have some colorable merit.”    Crain v.

Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

     Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax 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
                                 - 8 -

groundless.   The Court warned petitioner that further groundless

arguments would warrant sanctions.       Petitioner disregarded the

Court’s warning.   The Court will grant respondent’s Motion and we

will require petitioner to pay a penalty of $1,000 pursuant to

section 6673.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                 An appropriate order and decision

                          will be entered.
