                         T.C. Memo. 2005-39



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



             WILLIAM C. STEARMAN III, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 20928-03, 15561-04.     Filed March 3, 2005.


     William C. Stearman III, pro se.

     Donna B. Read, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     VASQUEZ, Judge:    These cases are before the Court on

respondent’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted and to impose a penalty under

section 6673(a).1

     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 2 -

Background

     By notice dated June 30, 2004 the Court set this case for

trial at the Court’s Dallas, Texas, session beginning December 6,

2004.    This notice specifically stated:   “YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR

MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST

YOU.”    Attached to this notice was the Court’s standing pretrial

order.

     On November 2, 2004, in docket No. 20928-03, respondent

filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted and to impose a penalty under section

6673(a).    Petitioner failed to appear at the call of these

consolidated cases.2   At the call of petitioner’s cases, in

docket No. 15561-04, respondent orally moved the Court to dismiss

for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted

and to impose a penalty under section 6673(a).

Discussion

     Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition filed in this Court

shall contain clear and concise assignments of each and every

error that the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the

Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency and the

additions to tax or penalties in dispute.    Rule 34(b)(5) further


     1
      (...continued)
Procedure.
     2
        On Nov. 22, 2004, the Court granted respondent’s motion
to consolidate.
                                - 3 -

requires that the petition shall contain clear and concise

lettered statements of the facts on which the taxpayer bases the

assignments of error.    Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 215

(2004); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982).       Any

issue not raised in the pleadings is deemed to be conceded.      Rule

34(b)(4); Funk v. Commissioner, supra; Jarvis v. Commissioner,

supra at 658 n.19; Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 736, 739

(1980).    Further, the failure of a party to plead or otherwise

proceed as provided in the Court’s Rules may be grounds for the

Court to hold such party in default, either on the motion of

another party or on the initiative of the Court.      Rule 123(a);

Ward v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-147.    The Court also may

dismiss a case and enter a decision against a taxpayer for his

failure properly to prosecute or to comply with the Rules of this

Court.    Rule 123(b); Ward v. Commissioner, supra.

       We agree with respondent that petitioner has failed to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted.    See Funk v.

Commissioner, supra at 216-217.    Furthermore, petitioner failed

to properly prosecute his case.    Accordingly we shall dismiss

petitioner’s cases and enter decisions sustaining respondent’s

determinations.    Rules 34(a), 123; Funk v. Commissioner, supra at

218.

       Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a

taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed

$25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous or groundless positions in
                                - 4 -

the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for

delay.   A position maintained by the taxpayer is “frivolous”

where it is “contrary to established law and unsupported by a

reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law.”    Coleman v.

Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Hansen v.

Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1464, 1470 (9th Cir. 1987) (section 6673

penalty upheld because taxpayer should have known claim was

frivolous).

     Petitioner attached to his petition in docket No. 15561-04 a

six-page letter replete with tax-protester rhetoric, asserting

there is no such thing as an income tax and containing arguments

regarding the 16th Amendment.

     On February 13, 2004, petitioner filed, in docket No. 20928-

03, a status report stating:    “Upon receipt of the Answer,

Petitioner respectfully declines to animate the person, capacity

or usage proposed by Respondent, and he is content to await

notice of any sua sponte activity relevant to this matter.”

     On November 18, 2004, in docket No. 20928-03, the Court

lodged respondent’s objection to petitioner’s request for

admissions, which respondent attached to his objection.3    On

November 19, 2004, pursuant to Rule 90, the Court ordered




     3
        We note that petitioner’s requests included: “‘Taxpayer’
means fiduciary,” “‘United States’ is a federal corporation,” and
“‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ is another federal corporation.”
                                - 5 -

petitioner to file his request for admissions.   Petitioner failed

to do so.

     On November 23, 2004, the Court lodged, in both dockets, a

document entitled “Probable Cause Affidavit” with attached

exhibits (PCA), which petitioner had submitted to the Court.    The

PCA alleged various criminal acts taken by the Court, objected to

the Tax Court Rules, requested “production” of a Tax Court Judge,

and contained “interrogatories” directed to a Tax Court Judge.

     On November 24, 2004, petitioner filed status reports in

both dockets.   The status reports contain disrespectful and

vulgar statements directed to the Court, and we shall not repeat

them herein.    That same day, in docket No. 20928-03, petitioner

filed a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted and to impose a

penalty under section 6673(a).4

     Several of the documents filed or lodged with the Court by

petitioner contain the heading:   “UNITED STATES TAX COURT (a

federal corporation, committing criminal acts under disguise of

providing professionally incompetent arbitration services, while

doing business in ‘this state’ via a tax exemption certificate.”

     Petitioner has advanced shopworn arguments characteristic of

tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this


     4
        We note that on the response petitioner also listed
docket No. 15561-04. For filing purposes, this docket number was
crossed out.
                               - 6 -

and other courts.   Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007 (9th

Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; Carter v. Commissioner,

784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986).    We shall not painstakingly

address petitioner’s assertions “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, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

     We conclude that in both dockets petitioner’s position was

frivolous and groundless and that petitioner instituted and

maintained these proceedings primarily for delay.    Although there

were some minor differences between the frivolous and dilatory

actions taken in each docket prior to consolidation, petitioner’s

actions in both dockets merit similar penalties.    Accordingly,

pursuant to section 6673(a), we hold petitioner is liable for a

$12,500 penalty in docket No. 20928-03 and a $12,500 penalty in

docket No. 15561-04.
                            - 7 -

To reflect the foregoing,



                                         Appropriate orders of

                                    dismissal and decisions will

                                    be entered.
