                        T.C. Memo. 2005-11



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



             BRADLEY COLSON BRENNECKE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11555-04.             Filed January 25, 2005.


     Bradley Colson Brennecke, pro se.

     Edward L. Walter, for respondent.


                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     POWELL, Special Trial Judge:   This case is before the Court

on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Upon Which Relief Can be Granted filed pursuant to Rule 40.1

Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for the

taxable year 1999.   Respondent determined a deficiency of $9,488


1
     All rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
                                - 2 -

in petitioner’s 1999 Federal income tax and additions to tax

under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) in the respective amounts

of $2,372 and $459.15.    The taxable income upon which the notice

of deficiency is predicated was derived from third-party

reporting forms.   Petitioner filed a timely petition in which he

lists a diatribe of arguments as to why he was not required to

pay Federal income tax.   At the time the petition was filed

petitioner resided in Goshen, Ohio.

     Respondent’s motion was filed on August 13, 2004.   On August

17, 2004, the Court ordered that petitioner file an amended

petition “in which he sets forth with specificity each error he

alleges was made by the respondent in the determination of the

deficiency and separate statements of every fact upon which

petitioner bases the assignment of each error.”   See Rule 34.

The Court also set respondent’s motion for hearing at the Trial

Session of November 8, 2004, in Cincinnati, Ohio.   Rather than

complying with the Court’s Order of August 17, 2004, petitioner

filed another farrago of nonsense.

     When this case was called from the calendar petitioner was

told that he had not complied with the Court’s Order and that his

arguments were frivolous and without merit.    See, e.g., Martin v.

Commissioner, 756 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-

473; Brennan v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1984);

Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983).
                               - 3 -

     The Court further warned petitioner that, if he persisted,

damages would be imposed 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 a

penalty to the United States in an amount not in excess of

$25,000.

     At the hearing, petitioner maintained the course that he had

charted in his petition.   Accordingly, respondent’s motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted.

Furthermore, petitioner’s arguments advanced here are frivolous,

and we award a penalty to the United States of $5,000 under

section 6673.

                                       An appropriate order of

                               dismissal and decision will be

                               entered.
