                           T.C. Memo. 2000-4



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT


                  LOY ROBERT BOST III, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 8259-99.                       Filed January 6, 2000.


     Loy Robert Bost III, pro se.

     Steven M. Webster, for respondent.


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     POWELL, Special Trial Judge:     Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s 1996 Federal income tax in the amount

of $4,434.
                                 - 2 -

     The issue is whether wages and a pension distribution are

taxable under section 61.1    Petitioner resided in Hickory, North

Carolina, at the time the petition was filed.

     Respondent determined that petitioner received wages of

$31,808 and a pension distribution of $1,270 from a so-called

section 401(k) retirement account during 1996, and petitioner has

stipulated these facts.    Petitioner raises two arguments.   First,

he contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve

the matter.    We have frequently stated that the predicates to our

jurisdiction are that a valid notice of deficiency is mailed to

the taxpayer at his last known address and a timely petition is

filed in this Court.    See secs. 6612, 6213, Rule 13; see also

Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Pyo v.

Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984).     That jurisdiction is in

personam.     See Freytag v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 35, 39 (1998).

In this case a valid notice of deficiency was mailed to

petitioner at his last known address, and petitioner timely filed

a petition in this Court.    This Court, therefore, has

jurisdiction.

     Petitioner’s second argument is that wages or compensation

for labor and the pension distribution are not taxable income.


     1
         Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue, and Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 3 -

This argument is frivolous.   See secs. 61, 72, 402(a); see also

Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-1122 (1983).

     Respondent asks that a penalty be imposed under section

6673.   That section provides, inter alia, that if it appears to

this Court that “the taxpayer’s position * * * is frivolous or

groundless”, the Court may impose a penalty in an amount not in

excess of $25,000.   Sec. 6673(a).   This Court cautioned

petitioner at the calendar call and at the trial that the

positions he espoused were frivolous and warned him of the

provisions of section 6673.   Petitioner did not heed these

warnings.   We therefore award a penalty to the United States

against petitioner in the amount of $1,500.

                               An appropriate order and decision

                          will be entered.
