                          T.C. Memo. 1995-478



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                    DARYL A. NORBLOM, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



        Docket No. 7773-94.              Filed October 4, 1995.



        Daryl A. Norblom, pro se.

        Virginia L. Hamilton, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


        DINAN, Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and

182.1



        1
          Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in
issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
                                   - 2 -

       Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1992

Federal income tax in the amount of $5,890 and additions to tax

under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654 in the amounts of $1,257 and

$241, respectively.

       After a concessions by the parties,2 the issues for decision

are:       (1) Whether the "wages" received by petitioner are taxable;

(2) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for

failure to file a return pursuant to section 6651(a) in the

amount of $1,257; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the

addition to tax for underpayment of estimated tax pursuant to

section 6654 in the amount of $241.

       No facts have been stipulated.      Petitioner resided in

Golden, Colorado, on the date the petition was filed in this

case.

       In 1992 petitioner worked for Aspen Office Furniture and

Denver Post from which he received wages in the amounts of

$22,652 and $8,269, respectively.      The wages from Aspen Office

Furniture were reported on a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement,

and $863 of Federal income tax was withheld.        The wages received

from Denver Post were self-employment income, reported on Form-

1099, Miscellaneous Income.      In addition, petitioner received a

taxable State income tax refund from the Colorado Department of


       2
          Respondent conceded that the notice of deficiency did
not reflect petitioner's withholding of $863. Petitioner
conceded that he must include in his gross income a refund of
State income tax.
                                 - 3 -

Revenue in the amount of $129.    Petitioner failed to file a 1992

Federal income tax return.

     Petitioner testified that he worked for Aspen Office

Furniture and Denver Post where he earned "wages" not income

during the taxable year.    Petitioner's contention that he had no

tax liability is based on various tax protester arguments.

     Petitioner is a classic tax protester raising traditional

protester arguments.   Such arguments are repeatedly rejected,

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981), and

need not be addressed by this Court.     Crain v. Commissioner, 737

F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984);     Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111

(1983); Nieman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-533.

     The second issue is whether petitioner is liable for the

addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).    Petitioner bears

the burden of proving that respondent's determination is

incorrect.   Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).

     Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to

timely file a return, unless the taxpayer establishes: (1) The

failure did not result from "willful neglect"; and (2) the

failure was "due to reasonable cause".    "Willful neglect" has

been interpreted to mean a conscious, intentional failure, or

reckless indifference.     United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241,

245-246 (1985).   "Reasonable cause" requires the taxpayer to

demonstrate that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence

and was nonetheless unable to file a return within the prescribed
                                 - 4 -

time.    United States v. Boyle, supra at 246; sec. 301.6651-

1(c)(1), Proced. and Admin. Regs.    The addition to tax equals 5

percent of the tax required to be shown on the return for the

first month, with an additional 5 percent for each additional

month or fraction of a month during which the failure to file

continues, not to exceed a maximum of 25 percent.    Sec.

6651(a)(1).

     Petitioner testified that he did not file a Federal income

tax return for 1992 "because [he] had no tax liability for that

year."    Based on the record we find petitioner intentionally

failed to file his 1992 Federal income tax return and is liable

for the addition to tax pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1).

     Finally, we address the issue of the addition to tax for

failure to pay estimated income tax under section 6654(a) for the

tax year 1992.    This Court stated in Estate of Ruben v.

Commissioner, 33 T.C. 1071, 1072 (1960):    "This section has no

provision relating to reasonable cause and lack of willful

neglect.    It is mandatory and extenuating circumstances are

irrelevant."    Petitioner has failed to show that he did not

underpay his estimated tax.    Accordingly respondent's

determination is sustained.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                           Decision will be entered

                                           under Rule 155.
