                        T.C. Memo. 2000-236



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT


                  JAMES H. K. WONG, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 9076-99.                      Filed August 3, 2000.


     James H. K. Wong, pro se.

     Dustin M. Starbuck, for respondent.


                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     POWELL, Special Trial Judge:   Petitioner did not file a

Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1996.   Respondent

determined a deficiency and additions to tax under sections

6651(a)(1), (2), and 66541 in petitioner’s 1996 Federal income

tax in the respective amounts of $7,951, $942.30, $397.86, and

$202.98.   The taxable income upon which the notice of deficiency



1
     Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue.
                               - 2 -

is predicated was derived from third-party reporting forms.

Petitioner filed a timely petition in which he alleged that he

did not have any income “from any source for the year * * * that

is the subject of a tax” and that he was not required to file any

return for the year.   At the time the petition was filed

petitioner resided in Richmond, Virginia.

     Petitioner stipulated that during 1996 he (1) “provided

services to the Bank of Hawaii [the Bank] having a fair market

value of $45,784.00"; (2) received from the Bank “property, in

the form of Federal Reserve Notes, having a fair market value of

$45,784.00"; (3) received a State tax refund of $339 during 1996;

(4) received $522 in Federal Reserve Notes for “brokerage sales”

during 1996; and (5) received $20 in dividends during 1996.     This

case was calendared for trial on May 17, 2000, in Richmond,

Virginia.

     When this case was called from the calendar petitioner

conceded that he received the amounts of income set forth in the

notice of deficiency and stated that the amounts did not

constitute taxable income.   From petitioner’s statements and

submissions, petitioner contends that the sale of his labor for

wages does not constitute taxable income.   Petitioner also argues

that the payment of income taxes is voluntary, and he is not a

volunteer.   Finally, petitioner contends that the 1996 Form 1040,

U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, does not contain a valid “OMB
                               - 3 -

Control Number”.   This Court and other courts have encountered

these and similar arguments repeatedly and we have repeatedly

rejected these arguments as frivolous.   See, e.g., Rowlee v.

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

Memo. 1995-584, affd. per curiam 92 F.3d 1177 (4th Cir. 1996);

Allnutt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-6, affd. per curiam 956

F.2d 1162 (4th Cir. 1992); Sterner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1989-352; Kearse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-249, affd. per

curiam 883 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1989).    The Court, therefore, on its

own motion, grants summary judgment with respect to these issues

and sustains respondent’s determinations.

     In many of the cases cited above we awarded penalties under

section 6673.   Section 6673(a) provides that, if the Court

determines that proceedings are maintained by a taxpayer

primarily for delay or the position of a taxpayer is groundless

or frivolous, the Court may award penalties to the United States

in an amount not in excess of $25,000.   At the hearing,

petitioner acknowledged that he was aware that we have repeatedly

rejected his arguments and have imposed penalties in similar

cases.
                              - 4 -

Petitioner’s arguments advanced here are frivolous, and there are

no facts militating against awarding a penalty.    Accordingly, we

award a penalty to the United States of $4,000 under section

6673.



                                           An appropriate Order and

                                      Decision will be entered.
