                        T.C. Memo. 2006-139



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                CYNTHIA P. BULLOCK, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 16378-04.                Filed July 5, 2006.



     Cynthia P. Bullock, pro se.

     Edward L. Walter, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     COHEN, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency of $6,896

and additions to tax of $1,551.60, $448.24, and $230.44 under

sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a), respectively, in

petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2002.     Respondent’s

determination was based on petitioner’s failure to file a Federal

income tax return reporting wages earned from Delta Air Lines,
                                - 2 -

Inc.    Because this is the third case in which petitioner raised

the same or similar arguments, and because she has had prior

warning, the Court, on its own motion, is imposing a penalty of

$7,500 under section 6673.    Unless otherwise indicated, all

section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for

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

Rules of Practice and Procedure.

                             Background

       Petitioner resided in Florence, Kentucky, at the time that

she filed her petition.    In 1999, she and her spouse filed a

petition in this Court, docket No. 15381-99, in which they

challenged deficiencies for 1996 and 1997.    Petitioner and her

spouse moved to withdraw that petition and failed to amend their

petition after having been given an opportunity to do so.    The

Court denied the motion to withdraw and granted respondent’s

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.    On appeal, the

Court of Appeals stated, in part:

       even after being given an opportunity to amend their
       petition, they raised only frivolous arguments, such as
       claiming that their income was not “wages” or that
       their wages were not taxable income, which have
       repeatedly been rejected. See Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848
       F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988); Perkins v. Comm’r, 746
       F.2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984). [Bullock v.
       Commissioner, 21 Fed. Appx. 272, 273 (6th Cir. 2001).]

       In 2004, petitioner filed a petition, docket No. 1530-04,

challenging a notice of deficiency sent to her for 2000.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
                               - 3 -

upon which relief can be granted.    Petitioner filed an amended

petition repeating frivolous arguments set forth in the petition.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted by order entered

June 29, 2004, which contained the following:

          Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to
     require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a
     penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears
     that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by
     the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s
     position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
     Although we will not impose a penalty upon petitioner
     pursuant to section 6673, we nevertheless will take
     this opportunity to admonish petitioner that the Court
     will consider imposing such a penalty should she return
     to the Court and advance similar arguments in the
     future.

     The present case was filed on September 7, 2004, with

respect to petitioner’s liability for 2002.    Petitioner filed a

frivolous petition, a frivolous motion for summary judgment, a

frivolous motion to vacate the order denying the motion for

summary judgment, and various other frivolous documents.    The

case was set for trial in Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 12, 2006,

pursuant to notice served January 9, 2006.    Petitioner failed to

comply with the Court’s Rules or with the standing pretrial order

served with the notice of trial.    Instead, on June 1, 2006,

petitioner filed a frivolous motion to dismiss, requesting

withdrawal of the petition.   That motion was denied June 1, 2006.

     Petitioner failed to appear for trial.    Respondent appeared

and filed a pretrial memorandum and a motion for judgment by

default.   Respondent’s moving papers included a section 6020(b)
                                - 4 -

“Certification” that a substitute return prepared by the Internal

Revenue Service satisfied the requirements of section 6651(a)(2),

(3), and (g)(2).

                            Discussion

     Petitioner has been on notice since at least 2001 that her

arguments concerning her income and her liability for income tax

are frivolous.   Yet she repeats her conduct, including attempts

to withdraw her petition after it has been filed.     Once

petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, she may

not withdraw or voluntarily dismiss her petition without entry of

a decision against her.   See sec. 7459(d); Estate of Ming v.

Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519, 524 (1974).

     It is apparent that petitioner’s tactics in filing petitions

in this Court are primarily for delay and that she intends to

pursue only frivolous arguments.   Nothing in her voluminous

filings suggests any justiciable dispute with respect to the

income determinations in the notice of deficiency and the

appropriateness of the additions to tax.     Funk v. Commissioner,

123 T.C. 213 (2004).   Respondent’s motion for judgment by default

will be granted under Rules 123 and 149.     The decision will

include an award of a penalty to the United States in the amount

of $7,500 under section 6673.


                                             An appropriate order and

                                        decision will be entered.
