                           T.C. Memo. 2011-3



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                EDWARD E. SLINGSBY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 23613-08L.               Filed January 4, 2011.



     Edward E. Slingsby, pro se.

     Jason W. Anderson and Robyn R. Gilliom, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     MORRISON, Judge:    The IRS filed a lien to collect the

federal income-tax liabilities of petitioner Edward E. Slingsby

for the years 1999, 2001, and 2002 and to collect penalties for

filing frivolous returns for 2002, 2003, and 2004.    Slingsby

requested an administrative hearing with the IRS Appeals Office.
                              - 2 -

He received adverse determinations.   He now appeals those

determinations to the Tax Court.

     For the years 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, various

companies reported on Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, that

they had paid wages to Slingsby.   The companies also reported

that they had withheld federal income-tax from Slingsby’s wages.

For each of the years 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, Slingsby

filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on which he

reported that he earned zero wage income.1   He also reported that

the companies had withheld federal income tax.   Using the Forms

W-2, the IRS determined that Slingsby had earned taxable income.

It assessed income-tax liabilities for 1999, 2001, and 2002.2


     1
      The Form 1040 that Slingsby mailed to the IRS for 2004 is
not in the record. The Appeals Office determined that the Form
1040 reported income-tax withholdings but no wages. Slingsby
does not dispute this characterization of his return.
     2
      Before the IRS can assess a deficiency in income tax, it
generally must issue the taxpayer a notice of deficiency. Sec.
6213(a), I.R.C. The IRS contends that Slingsby received notices
of deficiency for 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 and therefore
is barred by sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), I.R.C., from contesting his
underlying tax liabilities for 1999, 2001, and 2002. Slingsby
claims that he received no notices of deficiency except for the
notice for 2003, which would mean that he is entitled to
challenge his underlying tax liabilities for 1999, 2001, and
2002. We need not determine whether the notices of deficiency
were received because, as discussed below, Slingsby’s sole
challenge to his underlying tax liabilities is that the Forms W-2
are invalid, and that challenge is unmeritorious.

     In response to the notice of deficiency for 2003, Slingsby
filed a Tax Court petition seeking a redetermination of the
deficiency. The resulting case, docket No. 27943-07, was the
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 3 -

The IRS also assessed penalties against Slingsby for filing

frivolous returns for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

     To collect Slingsby’s income-tax liabilities for 1999, 2001,

and 2002 and Slingsby’s liabilities for the frivolous-return

penalty for 2002, 2003, and 2004, the IRS filed a lien against

Slingsby’s property.   By filing the notice of federal tax lien,

the IRS triggered Slingsby’s right to request a hearing under

section 6320.3   In his hearing request Slingsby wrote that the

reason he disagreed with the filing of the lien was:

“miscalculation of taxes and penalties”.   The IRS Appeals Office

held a telephone hearing with Slingsby on August 7, 2008.     In the

telephone hearing, Slingsby argued that the Forms W-2 were

invalid.   During the telephone hearing, the Appeals Office

responded that Slingsby’s challenge to the validity of the Forms

W-2 was frivolous and would not be considered.4   In two related

written decision letters, the Appeals Office determined the

filing of the lien was appropriate.


     2
      (...continued)
subject of an Oral Opinion on Sept. 25, 2008.
     3
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
(Code).
     4
      The Appeals Office also informed Slingsby that it believed
he had already had an opportunity to contest the liabilities and
that therefore the amounts of the liabilities were not at issue
in the hearing. It is unclear whether the Appeals Office was
referring to Slingsby’s liabilities for income taxes, Slingsby’s
liabilities for frivolous-return penalties, or both types of
liabilities.
                               - 4 -

     Slingsby appealed these determinations by filing a petition

with the Court.   At the time he filed the petition, Slingsby

was a resident of Illinois.   The parties (i.e. Slingsby and the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue) executed a stipulation of facts

and a supplemental stipulation of facts.    The Court hereby

incorporates these as its findings of fact.

     Before this Court, Slingsby continues to argue that the

Forms W-2 were invalid.   Slingsby reasons that the companies that

issued the Forms W-2 were not required to do so because they are

“private enterprises incorporated under the laws of the several

states party to the U.S. Constitution”.    The idea that private

enterprises are exempt from wage reporting is based upon

Slingsby’s misconstruction of sections 6051(a), 3401(d),

7701(a)(26), and 3121(e) and (h).   For example, section

7701(a)(26) provides:   “The term ‘trade or business’ includes the

performance of the functions of a public office.”5   Slingsby

argues that this provision means that a “trade or business”


     5
      Sec. 7701(a)(26) is relevant to Form W-2 information
returns because of the provisions of secs. 3101, 3102, 3402, and
6051. Sec. 3101(a) and (b) imposes Federal Insurance
Contributions Act tax on wages received by employees. Sec.
3102(a) requires employers to withhold amounts from wages to pay
the sec. 3101 tax. Sec. 3402(a)(1) requires every employer to
withhold amounts from wages to pay the federal income tax of the
employee. Sec. 6051(a) requires every person who is required to
withhold a tax under sec. 3101 or 3402 and every employer engaged
in a “trade or business” who pays for services performed by an
employee to furnish the employee an information return for each
year. The information return must include the total amount of
wages paid. Sec. 6051(a)(3).
                                 - 5 -

includes only a public office.    This argument is baseless.

Slingsby’s other arguments regarding these Code provisions make

so little sense that we find it difficult even to explain them.

We agree with the Appeals Office that Slingsby’s arguments are

frivolous.   We conclude that the Appeals Office did not err in

making its determinations.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
