                         T.C. Memo. 1997-406



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                LEON ALBERT LANDRY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 8347-96.                Filed September 15, 1997.



     Leon Albert Landry, pro se.

     Michele J. Gormley, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     FOLEY, Judge:    Respondent determined a deficiency in

petitioner's 1991 Federal income tax of $16,842 and additions to

tax, pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654, of $4,211 and

$970, respectively.   Unless otherwise indicated, all section

references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
                                - 2 -

year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules

of Practice and Procedure.    The issues for decision are as

follows:

     1.    Whether petitioner is liable for the deficiency

determined by respondent.    We hold that he is liable.

     2.    Whether petitioner, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), is

liable for an addition to tax for failing to file his 1991

Federal income tax return in a timely manner.    We hold that he is

liable.

     3.    Whether petitioner, pursuant to section 6654, is liable

for an addition to tax for failing to make estimated tax

payments.    We hold that he is liable.

     4.    Whether petitioner has engaged in behavior that warrants

the imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).      We

hold that a penalty is warranted and impose a penalty of $5,000.

                           FINDINGS OF FACT

     At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in

Medfield, Massachusetts.    In 1991, petitioner received $52,568

for services rendered to New England Retail Express, Inc.      He did

not file a 1991 Federal income tax return.

     On February 27, 1996, respondent issued a notice of

deficiency to petitioner.    In it, respondent determined that

petitioner, with respect to his 1991 tax year, was liable for a

deficiency and additions to tax pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1)

and 6654.    Respondent mailed the notice to petitioner's residence
                                - 3 -

in Medfield, Massachusetts.    Petitioner received the notice and

filed a timely petition.

     On January 9, 1997, respondent served petitioner with formal

requests to admit facts, answer interrogatories, and produce

documents.    Petitioner did not respond to the request to admit

facts.    As a result, the facts were deemed admitted by operation

of Rule 90(c).    In addition, petitioner did not respond to the

requests to produce documents and answer interrogatories.       On

February 25, 1997, respondent filed motions to compel petitioner

to comply with these two requests.      This Court, by order dated

February 28, 1997, granted respondent's motions and ordered

petitioner's compliance.    Subsequent to our order, petitioner, in

a letter to respondent, denied that he had any of the requested

documents.    He did not answer any of respondent's

interrogatories.

                               OPINION

     Petitioner contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction

because the notice of deficiency was not sent to the proper

address.    See 6212(b); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27

(1989).    At trial, respondent produced a copy of the statutory

notice bearing petitioner's address.      Petitioner alleged that the

address on the notice was altered.      Petitioner also contended

that the notice was not addressed to him.      He testified:   "The

letter * * * is sent to Leon Landry * * * I am not Leon Landry;

my name is Leon Albert Landry."    Petitioner's contentions are
                                - 4 -

without merit.    The notice was mailed to and actually received by

petitioner at his last known address.   Sec. 6212(b); see Erhard

v. Commissioner, 87 F.3d 273 (9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo.

1994-344; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 53 (1983).     We

find that the notice is valid and turn to the question of whether

respondent correctly determined petitioner's tax liability.

     Respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for a

$16,842 deficiency is presumed correct, and petitioner bears the

burden of proving it erroneous.   Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,

290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).   Petitioner conceded that he received

wages, but contended that his "hard work [did not] [constitute]

* * * taxable income."   Petitioner's contention is groundless.

Accordingly, we reject it and hold that petitioner is liable for

the deficiency.

     Respondent also determined that petitioner, pursuant to

section 6654, is liable for an addition to tax for failing to

make estimated tax payments.   Petitioner has the burden of

proving that respondent's determination is erroneous.   Rule

142(a); Baldwin v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 859, 871 (1985).

Petitioner did not offer any evidence relating to this issue.

Therefore, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6654

addition to tax.

     Respondent also determined that petitioner, pursuant to

section 6651, is liable for an addition to tax for failing to

file a tax return in a timely manner.   In response, petitioner
                                 - 5 -

testified:   "I am not a citizen of the United States.      I am a

citizen of New Hampshire.   Therefore, I do not * * * [have] to

file a Federal United States Federal [sic] income tax [return]."

We reject petitioner's contention and hold that petitioner is

liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax.

     Finally, we consider whether petitioner has engaged in

behavior that warrants the imposition of a penalty pursuant to

section 6673.   Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to

penalize a taxpayer for taking frivolous positions or instituting

proceedings primarily for delay.    At the outset of the trial, we

warned petitioner that he would be subject to a penalty if he

made frivolous contentions.   Nevertheless, he repeatedly asserted

that: (1) He, "Leon Albert Landry", was not the "Leon Landry" in

the notice of deficiency; (2) as a "citizen of New Hampshire", he

was not required to file a Federal income tax return; and (3) the

Internal Revenue Service "has not shown * * * [him] its lawful

authority to act against him."    In addition, petitioner did not

comply with our order to answer respondent's interrogatories.         He

has wasted the time and resources of this Court.       Accordingly,

this Court will impose a penalty of $5,000 against petitioner

pursuant to section 6673.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
