                        T.C. Memo. 2005-21



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                WHISTLE B. CURRIER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 16339-04.              Filed February 9, 2005.


     Whistle B. Currier, pro se.

     George W. Bezold, 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 2002.   Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,469


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 2002 Federal income tax and additions to tax

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

of $1,006.01 and $115.92.   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

sets out a farrago of nonsense as to why the notice of deficiency

is invalid and he does not owe the tax determined.       At the time

the petition was filed petitioner resided in West Allis,

Wisconsin.

     Respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed on October 7, 2004.

On October 12, 2004, the Court ordered that petitioner file an

amended petition “in which he sets forth with specificity each

error he alleges was made 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 December

13, 2004, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.       Rather than complying with

the Court’s Order of October 12, 2004, petitioner filed a

document that contained the same 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., Coleman

v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986); Rowlee v.
                               - 3 -

Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); see also Lysiak v.

Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987).

     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 $2,000 under

section 6673.   See Coleman v. Commissioner, supra at 71.

                                       An appropriate order of

                               dismissal and decision will be

                               entered.
