                       T.C. Memo. 1998-57



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 RANDAL W. HOWARD, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 20474-90.                  Filed February 11, 1998.


     Randal W. Howard, pro se.

     Rachael J. Zepeda, for respondent.


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

     COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge:     This case was heard

pursuant to section 7443A(b)(3)1 and Rules 180, 181, and 182.

     In separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined the

following deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes and

additions to tax:

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




                                  Additions to Tax
                            Sec.          Sec.          Sec.
Year       Deficiency    6651(a)(1)     6653(a)*       6654(a)

1987         $3,858       $  964.50     $192.90       $208.36
1988          5,298        1,324.00      265.00        339.00

     * For 1987, the addition to tax is under sec. 6653(a)(1)(A)
and, additionally, under sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) for 50 percent of the
interest due on the underpayment of $3,858. For 1988, the
addition to tax is under sec. 6653(a)(1).


       The issues for determination are:    (1) Whether petitioner is

liable for the deficiencies in tax based upon amounts reported by

payers as having been paid to petitioner during the years in

question, and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions

to tax.

       Some of the facts were stipulated.   Those facts, with the

annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herein by

reference.    At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's

residence was in the State of Arizona.

       In the notices of deficiency, respondent determined, based

upon information reported by payers, that petitioner earned the

following income during the years in question:


                                            1987       1988

  Family Life Broadcast                 $16,799      $19,938
  Arizona Central (interest)                 73           12
  Grace Broadcasting                       --          1,600
    Total                               $16,872      $21,550
                               - 3 -


     Petitioner filed an income tax return for 1987 on August 16,

1994, in which he reported zero income and a zero tax liability.

On the signature line of the return, above his signature, there

appear the words "Under Protest" with an asterisk referencing a

footnote:   "See attached statement of Randal W. Howard."

Attached to the return is a Form 1099-MISC issued by Family Life

Broadcasting System, as payer, and Randal W. Howard, as

recipient, of $16,799.90 for "nonemployee compensation".     The

return also includes a Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, in

which petitioner identified the $16,799.90 as an amount received

for his "labor", and as to which petitioner claimed a cost or

basis of $16,799.90 and zero capital gain.   The footnoted

statement referred to on petitioner's tax return consists of five

typewritten pages wherein petitioner disclaims any liability for

Federal income taxes.   On the same date, petitioner filed a 1988

income tax return that included a Form 1099-MISC from the same

payer for nonemployee compensation of $19,938.51.   That document

contains the same references and attached statements as the 1987

return.

     In the written statement attached to petitioner's returns,

as well as in his petition, petitioner alleges classic protester

arguments such as:   He was born "without" the United States in

Passaic County, New Jersey; he is not a citizen or resident of

the United States or the State of Arizona, even though his
                                 - 4 -


permanent, personal, place of abode is in Arizona; he is not a

"taxpayer within the meaning of the Code"; the issuances of the

notices of deficiency to petitioner are invalid because various

delegation orders in the structure of the Treasury Department

were never promulgated in the Federal Register, and numerous

other nonsensical allegations that have absolutely no legal

merit.   None of the allegations address the adjustments relating

to petitioner's income or expenses for the years at issue.

     The case was calendared for trial, and, at the commencement

of the session, when the case was called from the calendar,

petitioner appeared for trial.    At the conclusion of the calendar

call, the Court announced the date and time that petitioner's

case would be heard.   Petitioner signed a stipulation of facts,

which he left with counsel for respondent.   At the time set for

trial of the case, petitioner failed to appear to present

additional evidence.   The stipulation of facts was submitted into

evidence, and the Court declared for the record that petitioner

had rested his case.   Respondent offered no witnesses or other

documentary evidence, whereupon the Court declared the record of

the case closed, and the case was taken under advisement.

     The determinations of respondent in a notice of deficiency

are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of

proving that the determinations are in error.   Rule 142(a); Welch

v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).    The only evidence
                               - 5 -


presented by petitioner consisted of the written stipulation of

facts that included a statement of his residence at the time the

petition was filed, statements acknowledging receipt of the

various items respondent determined were income, and copies of

the purported income tax returns filed by petitioner with

respondent for the 2 years in question.     The stipulation contains

no evidence or other information that would establish anything

other than the fact that petitioner received taxable income

during the years in question, and that the deficiencies

determined by respondent are based on such income.       The written

statements attached to petitioner's income tax returns, which

were included in the stipulation, as well as petitioner's

allegations in his pleadings, lead the Court to the conclusion

that petitioner's case is baseless and, in essence, fails to

state a case.2   Petitioner presented to the Court nothing more

than tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish, which have

absolutely no merit and deserve no further attention from this

Court.   Suffice it to say that petitioner has not sustained his

burden of proof, and the Court sustains respondent on all issues.



                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.

     2
          Respondent did not elect to file a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under Rule 40.
