                        T.C. Memo. 1997-184



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                SHIRLEY S. HIRSH, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2657-95.                      Filed April 21, 1997.



     Shirley S. Hirsh, pro se.

     Scott Anderson, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     GERBER, Judge:   This case was calendared for trial at the

January 13, 1997, trial session in Richmond, Virginia.   On that

date, petitioner Shirley S. Hirsh submitted a motion to withdraw

her petition in this case.   Petitioner did not specifically

address respondent's determinations but instead questioned

respondent's and this Court's jurisdiction over her.
                                - 2 -


     At the trial session, respondent's counsel orally moved the

Court to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution and find

petitioner liable for the deficiencies and additions to tax as

determined in the notice of deficiency.   Respondent also sought

to have a penalty awarded to the United States pursuant to

section 6673(a)1 on the ground that petitioner's position in

instituting this proceeding is frivolous or groundless.


Motion To Withdraw

     We first consider petitioner's motion to withdraw her

petition in this case.   It is well settled that the filing of a

timely petition in response to a timely notice of deficiency

invests this Court with jurisdiction to finally resolve the

parties’ controversy.    Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.

519, 521 (1974).   Additionally, under section 7459(d), if we

dismiss a case for any reason other than lack of jurisdiction,

this Court may enter an order finding the deficiency to be the

amount determined in the notice of deficiency or in some other

appropriate amount.   Sec. 7459; see also Rule 123(d).

Consequently, Ms. Hirsh’s petition may not be withdrawn without

prejudice.   Graham v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 853, 858 (1981);




     1
       All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the taxable years at issue, and Rule references are to
this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 3 -


Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, supra at 522.    Accordingly,

petitioner's motion to withdraw her petition will be denied.



Motions To Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and for a Penalty

     On November 17, 1994, respondent determined deficiencies in

and additions to petitioner’s income tax as follows:

                                    Additions to Tax

   Year       Deficiency      Sec. 6651(a)(1)      Sec. 6654

   1990        $5,130             $1,282.50         $335.86

   1991         5,111              1,211.75            275.32

   1992         5,660              1,399.50            243.86



Petitioner’s legal residence was in Virginia when the petition

was filed on February 17, 1995.    In the petition, it was

contended that respondent possessed no authority to issue the

notice of deficiency.   The place of trial was designated as

Richmond, Virginia, per petitioner's request.

     This case was initially set for trial at the Richmond,

Virginia, trial session commencing January 22, 1996.      Petitioner

appeared and orally moved for a continuance of her case.

Respondent's counsel believed that petitioner required more time

to obtain records for trial and did not object, and the case was

continued.
                               - 4 -


     On April 8, 1996, petitioner submitted a document entitled

"Part One Non-Statutory Abatement", which purports to be a

pleading filed in the "superior court, Hanover county, Virginia".

The six-page document generally denies the authority of

respondent and this Court to deal with the subject matter of this

proceeding.   On the same date, based on the aforementioned

document, respondent's Appeals officer warned petitioner that she

might be subject to penalties pursuant to section 6673.

     On July 10, 1996, respondent's counsel served discovery on

petitioner, including a request for production of documents and

other related information and interrogatories.   Petitioner did

not produce the requested documents and did not answer the

interrogatories.

     On August 5, 1996, petitioner submitted a document entitled

"Addendum to Non-Statutory Abatement, Parts One and Two".     The

document contained tax protester-type arguments and did not

respond to or explain petitioner’s failure to respond to the

discovery.

      On January 13, 1997, this case was called for trial, and

counsel for respondent appeared and was heard.   There was no

formal appearance by or on behalf of petitioner when the case was

called.   However, petitioner on that day submitted a document

entitled "Notice of Demand to Withdraw Petition Known as Docket

No. 2657-95".   The aforementioned document is a 13-page, single-
                              - 5 -


spaced manuscript containing tax protester-type arguments.

Generally, it rejects the validity of the notice of deficiency on

the ground that petitioner never consented to it and denies the

authority of this Court to adjudicate this matter.   At the trial

session, respondent orally moved to dismiss for failure to

properly prosecute and to award a penalty to the United States

because petitioner took frivolous or groundless positions.

     On January 27, 1997, respondent's counsel filed a written

motion for imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 6673.    The

next day, this Court issued an order that petitioner respond or

object to respondent's motion on or before February 27, 1997.

     On February 28, 1997, petitioner’s document entitled "Notice

to the United States Tax Court" was filed.   This 40-page, single-

spaced document is a confused dissertation purporting to examine

various aspects of common law, constitutional history, various

U.S. territorial statutes, 19th-century case law, the Federal

Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of

Evidence, and U.S. Postal Service regulations.

     To the extent discernible, petitioner contends:

(1) Generally, the "50 independent republics" that make up the

United States have failed to control and restrain their common

agent, the United States Federal Government; (2) this Court

retains no authority over petitioner since it is a Federal court

and she is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia;
                              - 6 -


(3) Acts of Congress have no force over citizens of the various

States, except for Federal citizens and employees, unless there

are regulations published in the Federal Register; (4) the

Internal Revenue Code only applies to "import duties on alcohol,

tobacco and firearms"; (5) the Supreme Court is the sole court

which may adjudicate this controversy since it is exclusively

endowed with Article III authority; and (6) respondent's agents

have no authority or jurisdiction over the citizens of the

various States; thus, those agents do not have immunity from

their purportedly illegal acts.

     The above arguments are without legal and factual

foundation, and are without merit.    Petitioner's argument that

she is not a taxpayer is patently frivolous.    United States v.

Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986).2   We have generally

recognized that petitions containing frivolous arguments add to

the Court's case load and cause needless expenditures of time,

effort, and expense by the Commissioner and by this Court.

Hatfield v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 895, 899 (1977).    We are not

obligated to review exhaustively and rebut petitioner's misguided




     2
       "We note that this argument has been consistently and
thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for
decades. Indeed advancement of such utterly meritless arguments
is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil litigants
who raise them." United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937
n.3.
                               - 7 -


contentions.   See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

     Section 6673 authorizes this Court to impose a penalty in

favor of the United States, in an amount not to exceed $25,000,

whenever it appears that the taxpayer's position in a proceeding

is frivolous, groundless, or instituted or maintained primarily

for delay.   A petition in the Tax Court is frivolous "if 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).   In this case,

petitioner made frivolous arguments.   She failed to raise any

issue with regard to the correct amount of her income tax

liability, including the additions to tax.   Specifically,

petitioner failed to file a petition containing clear and concise

statements of error or statements of fact.   Rather, she chose to

assert meritless tax protester-type rhetoric that has been

rejected by numerous courts.   Respondent cautioned petitioner, at

least once, regarding her arguments and the possibility of a

penalty being awarded by this Court if she pursued her baseless

claims.   Petitioner also refused to follow this Court's Rules of

Practice and Procedure and answer respondent's interrogatories,

and failed to cooperate in this case after invoking our

jurisdiction in response to respondent's determination.

     We find that petitioner instituted and maintained this

action primarily for delay and that her position in this
                               - 8 -


proceeding is frivolous and groundless.     Accordingly, we shall

grant respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and

sustain respondent's determinations as set forth in her notice of

deficiency.   We further conclude that petitioner is liable for a

penalty under section 6673 in the amount of $5,000.


                                       An appropriate order and

                               decision will be entered for

                               respondent.
