                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-179



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              WILLIAM J. LAIDLAW III, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 6375-00S, 10575-00S.    Filed November 29, 2001.


     William J. Laidlaw III, pro se.

     Donna Bice Read, for respondent.




     DEAN, Special Trial Judge:   These consolidated cases were

heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal

Revenue Code in effect at the time the petitions were filed.

Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.    The

decisions to be entered are not reviewable by any other court,

and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
                               - 2 -

     In two notices of deficiency, respondent determined

deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal income taxes of $21,799,

$27,016, $17,327, $25,967, and $20,709, for the taxable years

1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively.   Respondent

determined additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) in the

amounts of $1,089.95, $1,350.80, $866.35, $6,491.75, and

$5,177.25 and additions to tax under section 6654 in the amounts

of $1,131.20, $1,313.33, $922.24, $1,389.28, and $947.60 for

1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively.   The issues for

decision are:   (1) Whether petitioner had unreported income as

determined by respondent; (2) whether petitioner failed to file

Federal income tax returns without reasonable cause; and (3)

whether petitioner underpaid estimated income taxes.

     At the time the petitions were filed, petitioner resided in

Fort Worth, Texas.

                            Background

     Petitioner filed petitions in which he alleged that "I

dispute all of the above [tax deficiencies and additions to tax]

due to the fact that I am not required to file a tax return for a

variety of reasons."   Respondent filed in each case a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

     In consideration of respondent's motions, the Court ordered

petitioner to file proper amended petitions setting forth clear
                                - 3 -

assignments of error committed by respondent in determining the

deficiencies and additions in dispute and the facts on which he

based the assignments of error.    Because petitioner filed amended

petitions that alleged, among other things, assignments of error

and facts that can be interpreted as raising justiciable issues,

respondent's motions were denied.

     At trial, however, petitioner raised only one issue.      That

issue can be distilled to a peculiar concept, often espoused by

tax protesters.    He did not have income in the years at issue, he

said, because the corporate payroll checks he received were

debts, "And when you take that check to the bank, you get more

debts that are called" Federal reserve notes.    Petitioner

admitted that he received the checks from various payers and that

he failed to file Federal income tax returns and pay taxes.

     During the years at issue, petitioner was an insurance

salesman working on a commission basis for a number of insurance

companies.   Before trial, petitioner refused to stipulate any

facts or exhibits.    Respondent was forced to bring in from

various locations representatives from insurance companies to

testify concerning documents verifying their commission payments

to petitioner.    Petitioner failed to question on cross-

examination any witness or raise an objection to the admission of

any of the documents they produced.
                               - 4 -

                            Discussion

     Other than testimony as to his announced "legal" theory,

petitioner presented no evidence and has abandoned contesting any

justiciable issue raised by respondent's determinations.   See

Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988).

     We see no need to address the frivolous legal theory of

petitioner.   See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir.

1984); accord Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 907 (10th

Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-154.

     Petitioner has failed to prove any error in respondent's

determinations.   Respondent's determinations of deficiencies in

and additions to tax for 1994 through 1998, inclusive, are

therefore sustained in their entirety.

     At trial, respondent moved for penalties under section 6673,

sanctions and costs awarded by courts.   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 positions

in such proceedings are frivolous or groundless.

     A petition to the Tax Court is frivolous "if it is contrary

to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable

argument for change in the law."   Coleman v. Commissioner, 791

F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986), affg. an unreported order of this
                                - 5 -

Court.    On the basis of well-established law, we find that

petitioner's position is frivolous and groundless.

     The record in these cases convinces us that petitioner was

not interested in disputing the merits of either the deficiencies

in income taxes or the additions to tax determined by respondent

in the respective notices of deficiency.    Rather, the record

demonstrates that petitioner regards these cases as vehicles to

espouse his own misguided view of the tax laws of this country.

     We are also convinced that petitioner instituted and

maintained these proceedings primarily, if not exclusively, for

purposes of delay.    Dealing with these matters wasted the Court's

time and respondent's time, and taxpayers with genuine

controversies were delayed.

     In view of the foregoing, we shall exercise our discretion

under section 6673(a)(1) and require petitioner to pay penalties

to the United States in the total amount of $25,000.    See Fox v.

Commissioner, 969 F.2d 951, 953 (10th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1991-240; Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-1418

(5th Cir. 1984); Coulter v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 580, 584-586

(1984).
                                - 6 -

    Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

    To reflect the foregoing,

                                        Decisions will be entered

                                for respondent.
