                          T.C. Memo. 1997-5



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                ALBERT L. BARCROFT, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 21515-95.                     Filed January 2, 1997.


     Albert L. Barcroft, pro se.

     Candace M. Williams, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

     CHIECHI, Judge:   Respondent determined the following defi-

ciencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax:
                                     Additions to Tax
                                   Section      Section
         Year     Deficiency       6651(a)1     6654(a)
         1992      $40,235         $10,059       $1,754
         1993       42,751          10,688        1,792


1
   All 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 -

     The issues remaining for decision are:2

     (1)   Does petitioner have nonemployee compensation income

for 1992 and 1993 in the amounts of $121,823 and $108,914,

respectively?   We hold that he does.

     (2)   Is petitioner liable for self-employment tax for each

of the years 1992 and 1993?   We hold that he is.

     (3)   Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a) for each of the years 1992 and 1993?   We hold

that he is to the extent stated herein.

     (4)   Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under

section 6654(a) for each of the years 1992 and 1993?   We hold

that he is to the extent stated herein.

     Petitioner resided in Trenton, Texas, at the time the

petition was filed.

     Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's

determinations in the notice are erroneous.    Rule 142(a); Welch

v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

     In answering respondent's requests for admissions, peti-

tioner admitted that he received $121,823 and $108,914 from First

National Life and Health as nonemployee compensation during 1992

and 1993, respectively.   However, he claims that such compensa-

tion is not income and that he is not subject to tax on such

compensation.

2
   At trial, respondent conceded the determination in the notice
of deficiency (notice) that petitioner had capital gain in the
amount of $24,000 for 1993.
                               - 3 -

      In answering respondent's request for admissions, petitioner

also admitted that he did not file a Federal income tax return

(Form 1040) for either of the years at issue.3   However, he

3
   Petitioner further asserted that although he did not file a
Form 1040 for each year at issue, he submitted a "Statement in
Lieu of a Return" (statement) for each such year. Those state-
ments contain protester-type contentions that have been rejected
by the courts as groundless. For example, those statements
assert:

       I also began to study the constitution and other support-
    ing documents. To my amazement, I discovered that the
    "progressive income tax" is obviously and blatantly uncon-
    stitutional, at least for the posterity of those men who
    wrote the Constitution, which is still the Supreme Law of
    our Land! I am one of their posterity, so such a tax cannot
    apply to me!

               *     *     *     *     *     *     *

      In the 1991, 1040 Forms and Instructions package, under
    "Filing Requirements," it states, "The rules under Do I Have
    to File? apply to all U.S. Citizens and resident aliens."

      I am not a "U.S. citizen," subject to federal
    jurisdiction, such as "officers, employees, and elected
    officials of the United States," nor do I reside within a
    federal territory such as Washington D.C., or a federal
    enclave within a State, or a U.S. Possession.

      According to the Original Constitution, I am a "Natural-
    born, Free Citizen/National of the United States of America"
    whose "birth origin" was the State of Texas, and whose
    primary citizenship is of the State of Texas.

               *     *     *     *     *     *     *

      I am not a "tax protester," and I am not a "tax cheat"!
    What I AM is an AMERICAN! I AM a FREE and Sovereign Citizen
    under the Law of Nature, the Law of God, the Law of Nations,
    the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the
    United States of America!

      Now that I fully understand my Rights, and the fact that
    participation with the IRS is voluntary, I WILL no longer
    volunteer to be a part of such a destructive and lawless
                                                     (continued...)
                               - 4 -

contends that he was not required to file a return for either of

those years because "the income tax system is based upon volun-



3
 (...continued)
   system.

               *     *     *     *     *     *     *

      If it is proven, by the Internal Revenue Service, using
    findings of fact and conclusions of law, that I am a "tax-
    payer" per 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)14 [sic], I will file an amended
    statement and/or return and pay the resultant tax. My
    intent is only to avoid "voluntarily" claiming taxpayer
    status with its accompanying liability. I am willing to pay
    any tax for which I am properly liable, but wish to avoid
    any amounts for which I am not liable. However, at this
    time, I have determined my status to be that of "non-
    taxpayer". I hereby demand that you immediately forward to
    me a document stating that I am not liable and/or required
    to file a "1040 tax return," or that you produce the statu-
    tory authority that requires me to file said return.

      In addition to the above, I want to be on record as
    objecting to the use of Federal Reserve Notes, Federal
    Reserve Banks, Zip Codes, Social Security Numbers, and any
    other "federal monopoly benefits". * * *

      I consider Federal Reserve Notes fraudulent. They are
    not notes because they do not promise to pay anything at a
    certain date. They can't be dollars because the word "dol-
    lar" is a noun. A dollar is a word designating a unit of
    measure such as pound or quart. Therefore, the use of the
    word "dollar" on a Federal Reserve Note really means a
    dollar's worth of nothing.

               *     *     *     *     *     *     *

      Finally, no liability can arise from the involuntary use
    of these bogus instruments.

               *     *     *     *     *     *     *

      I am not engaged in any revenue taxable activity. I have
    no income! I am not a person made liable under the Internal
    Revenue Code! As a law abiding Citizen of the Sovereign
    State of Texas, I will not participate in the fraud of the
    U.S. federal government, and I claim and demand all of my
    Rights and protections under the Original Constitution.
                              - 5 -

tary compliance".

     On the record before us, we find that petitioner has non-

employee compensation income in the amounts of $121,823 and

$108,914 for 1992 and 1993, respectively.    Except for the capital

gain determination in the notice for 1993 that respondent has

conceded and any correlative effect of that concession on the

computation of the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and

6654(a) for 1993, we further find on the instant record that

petitioner has not satisfied his burden of showing error in any

of the other determinations in the notice.

     To reflect the foregoing and the concession of respondent,


                                      Decision will be entered

                              under Rule 155.
