                       T.C. Memo. 2000-142



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               BARRY PHILLIP FIEGEL, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 16119-98.                     Filed April 18, 2000.



     Barry Phillip Fiegel, pro se.

     William Castor, for respondent.



                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

     DINAN, Special Trial Judge:     Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax in the amount of

$3,117 for the taxable year 1996.    Unless otherwise indicated,

section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for

the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                 - 2 -

     The issues for decision are:    (1) Whether petitioner was

required to report as income certain amounts he received in

taxable year 1996; (2) whether petitioner is liable for self-

employment tax on income received in 1996, and entitled to a

deduction therefor, as determined by respondent; and (3) whether

petitioner is eligible for the earned income credit for 1996.

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.1

The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.    Petitioner resided in

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on the date the petition was filed in

this case.

     Petitioner timely filed his Federal income tax return for

taxable year 1996.   On his return, he reported $5,831 in wages

received from OTI, Inc.   Petitioner received, but did not report

on his return, $1,605 from Nebraska Keno Operators, Inc., and

$8,886 from National Petition Management.

     Respondent issued petitioner a statutory notice of

deficiency dated July 1, 1998.    Respondent’s determination of

petitioner's tax liability in the notice of deficiency is



     1
      Both petitioner and counsel for respondent signed the
Stipulation of Facts with attached exhibits. Petitioner,
however, added a handwritten note stating that “I, Barry Fiegel,
say ‘no contest’ or ‘nolo contendre’ to this 3-page proposed
Stipulation of Facts. * * * I have no idea whether the enclosed
‘facts’ are true or are not true.” We will continue to treat the
statements made in the document as stipulated, however, because
petitioner admitted the veracity of the stipulation at trial.
                                - 3 -

presumed to be correct, and petitioner bears the burden of

proving it wrong.   See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.

111 (1933).

     Petitioner disputes all the determinations made by

respondent in the notice of deficiency.    Petitioner’s argument,

as stated in his amended petition to this Court, is based upon

his “disputation of the claim on the fact or theory that the

federal income system or scheme is a system or scheme of

‘voluntary compliance.’”    This argument is clearly without merit:

Petitioner was legally required to file a Federal income tax

return for taxable year 1996, see sec. 6012(a)(1)(A), and was

legally required to report thereon all income he received during

the year, as required by respondent, see sec. 6011(a).

     Respondent determined that the amounts of $1,605 and $8,886

received by petitioner in 1996 from Nebraska Keno Operators,

Inc., and National Petition Management, respectively, were

includable in his income.   Petitioner did not produce evidence

refuting this determination.   Thus, petitioner must include these

amounts in his income.   See sec. 61(a).

     Respondent also determined that these amounts were self-

employment income within the meaning of section 1402(b).

Petitioner again did not present evidence refuting this

determination.   Thus, petitioner is liable for self-employment

tax for 1996 figured from self-employment income in the total
                                 - 4 -

amount of $10,491.   See sec. 1401.      Accordingly, petitioner is

also entitled to a deduction in the amount of one-half of the

self-employment tax, as stated by respondent in the notice of

deficiency.   See sec. 164(f)(1).

     Finally, respondent made a computational adjustment

disallowing petitioner’s claimed earned income credit.       The

record does not establish that petitioner had any qualifying

children, as defined under section 32(c)(3), during taxable year

1996.   Because petitioner’s earned income was greater than $9,500

during that year, petitioner was not eligible to claim the

credit.   See sec. 32(a)(2).

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
