                       T.C. Memo. 2008-181



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              RANDALL E. RUNQUIST, Petitioner v.
         COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 9979-07.               Filed July 30, 2008.



     Randall E. Runquist, pro se.

     Margaret Burow and Thomas Mackinson, for respondent.



                       MEMORANDUM OPINION


     SWIFT, Judge:   This case is before us on respondent’s

motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute.

     Petitioner and his wife live in Oregon.

     Respondent determined a $22,092 deficiency in petitioner

and his wife’s 2004 joint Federal income taxes, and an addition
                                -2-
to tax under section 6651(a)(1)1 and a penalty under section

6662(a) in the respective amounts of $5,504 and $4,418.

       In 2004 petitioner and his wife earned and received wages

from their employment with MetroPCS and Tigard-Tualatin School

District 23J of $86,755 and $9,685, respectively.

       On their late filed joint 2004 Federal income tax return,

petitioner and his wife reported a $60,000 early IRA

distribution but reported zero in wages.

       On audit, respondent charged petitioner and his wife with

the above wages and determined the above joint income tax

deficiency.

       At the Court’s April 28, 2008, trial calendar in San

Francisco, California, this case was called and set for trial

on May 1, 2008.    On April 30, 2008, petitioner called

respondent’s counsel and stated that he wanted to withdraw his

petition and not proceed with his case.

       At the time of trial on May 1, 2008, petitioner appeared

and represented to the Court that he was not a taxpayer, that

Congress did not intend to tax everyone--only employees of the

Government--and that his and his wife’s wages were not taxable.

Petitioner offered no credible evidence, and petitioner asked

that he be allowed to withdraw his petition.




   1
    All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.
                               -3-
     At the May 1, 2008, hearing the Court attempted to explain

to petitioner the taxability of wages, the overwhelming

authority therefor, and the risks that the Court would impose

penalties if petitioner continued with tax-protester arguments.

The Court also attempted to explain to petitioner the obvious

personal financial and other risks associated with petitioner’s

assertion of tax-protester arguments.   Petitioner disclosed

that he had already separated from his wife and that his life

could not get much worse, and petitioner acknowledged that his

many problems related to his tax-protester status.

     The Court gave petitioner 2 weeks to reconsider his

tax-protester arguments.   A followup conference call occurred

on May 15, 2008, at which petitioner requested and was given

additional time to consider his arguments in this case.    At

another conference call on June 17, 2008, however, petitioner

again asserted the same tax-protester arguments that he was not

a taxpayer and that his and his wife’s wages were not taxable.

     Petitioner’s arguments merit no analysis or discussion.

The Court has gone out of its way to assist petitioner to

abandon his tax-protester status and to become tax compliant.

For the reasons stated in respondent’s motion to dismiss for

lack of prosecution, respondent’s motion will be granted.
                              -4-
     On our own motion, we will impose on petitioner a penalty

of $2,000 under section 6673(a)(1) for filing a frivolous

lawsuit and for making frivolous arguments herein.


                                    An appropriate order of

                              dismissal and decision will be

                              entered.
