                          T.C. Memo. 2001-20



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                    ANNE M. ROGERS, Petitioner v.
            COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 18692-99.                      Filed January 30, 2001.



     Anne M. Rogers, pro se.

     M. Kathryn Bellis, for respondent.



              MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

     COHEN, Judge:     Respondent determined deficiencies and

additions to tax in petitioner’s Federal income taxes for 1996

and 1997 as follows:

                                  Additions to Tax, I.R.C.
     Year      Deficiency       Sec. 6651(a)(1)    Sec. 6654

     1996       $21,813          $  942.25           $ 93.88
     1997        32,519           1,618.00            191.42
                                - 2 -


Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.

Petitioner denies that she is liable for income tax or additions

to tax on her earnings as a salaried employee in private

industry.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

     Petitioner resided in Sugar Land, Texas, at the time that

her petition was filed.   Prior to and during the years in issue,

petitioner was married to Kenneth E. Rogers.   Prior to and during

the years in issue, petitioner was employed by various private

employers as a systems analyst.   She received income from her

employment in the amounts of $97,156 in 1994, $85,386 in 1995,

$87,968 in 1996, and a total of $117,095 (from two employers) in

1997.    During the years in issue, petitioner also received other

income from dividends, interest, and proceeds from the sale of

stock.

     Prior to 1994, petitioner filed Federal income tax returns.

For 1994, she submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a

Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, that reported her

income for that year, checked her status as “married filing

separate return”, and attached a statement disclaiming any tax

liability for 1994 and asserting that she “did not engage in any

licensed occupation or activity subject to an excise tax”.

Petitioner did not file an income tax return for 1995, 1996, or
                               - 3 -

1997.   Her employers withheld Federal income tax from

petitioner’s earnings for 1995, 1996, and 1997.   Petitioner did

not make any estimated tax payments for 1996 or 1997.

                              OPINION

     Petitioner has not presented any evidence or made any

argument that she did not receive the income determined in

respondent’s notice of deficiency or that she is entitled to

deductions not allowed by respondent.   Petitioner, like many

before her, has presented a “hodgepodge of unsupported

assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish”.

Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).      As

the Court of Appeals stated in Crain, “We perceive no need to

refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation

of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have

some colorable merit.”   Id. at 1417.   We briefly describe those

contentions that are central to her position.

Validity of the Notice

     Petitioner contends that the notice of deficiency was not

sufficient because it failed to identify the Code sections under

which respondent’s determination was made.   Section 7522 sets

forth requirements as to the contents of notices, including a

statutory notice of deficiency under section 6212.   Section

7522(a) provides that the notice “shall describe the basis for,

and identify the amounts (if any) of, the tax due, interest,
                               - 4 -

additional amounts, additions to tax, and assessable penalties

included in such notice.   An inadequate description under the

preceding sentence shall not invalidate such notice.”   There is

no requirement that legal citations be included in the statutory

notice mailed to petitioner.   See Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.

646, 655-656 (1982).   The notice in this case set out the

specific items of unreported income received by petitioner and

the other amounts required under section 7522.   The notice sent

to petitioner is sufficient for all relevant purposes of this

case.

     Petitioner also argues that she was entitled to a hearing

with the IRS Appeals Division before the notice of deficiency was

sent.   There is no such requirement, and it is apparent, based on

petitioner’s arguments, that any such hearing would have been

futile.   Similarly, we reject her request that the case be

“remanded” to the IRS for further consideration of her arguments.

Petitioner’s Income Tax Liability

     Petitioner makes a convoluted argument that subjecting her

to the same rate of taxes as Federal employees constitutes

impermissible “disparate tax treatment.”   Petitioner cites a

variety of Code sections and regulatory materials to show that

public employees receive benefits from the Federal Government

that are not available to her as an employee of private industry.

She argues:
                                - 5 -

     Whether due to favored treatment of the Federal
     employee, or officer in the statutes under Title 5
     U.S.C. et seq., there exist a great legal disparity in
     the economic employment benefits, privileges, or
     protections directly received from the Federal
     Government by the Federal employee, or officer, and
     what the petitioner directly receives from the Federal
     Government * * *.

As a result, she argues, application of the same rates of Federal

income tax to her as are applied to Federal employees is

unconstitutional.   She asserts that taxes imposed on her and used

to pay benefits above and beyond wages to Federal employees are

improper takings of her income for a “private purpose” within the

meaning of various cases dealing with disparate treatment by

Federal statutes or agencies.

     Petitioner’s argument is erroneous in several respects.

First, provision of benefits to a Federal employee in relation to

his or her employment is an expenditure of funds for a public

purpose, not the private purpose of the employee.    Second, tax

rates are not applied to employees by classification, whether

public or private, but to levels and categories of income.

Third, even if a distinction had been made between employees paid

with Federal funds and employees paid with private funds, such

classifications, having a rational basis, do not violate the

constitutional rights of taxpayers.     See, e.g., Sjoroos v.

Commissioner, 81 T.C. 971, 975 (1983).
                                - 6 -

Estimated Tax Requirement

       Petitioner also contends that there is no “enabling

legislation” requiring payment of estimated taxes since the

repeal of former section 6015 in 1984.    Former section 6015,

relating to declarations of estimated income tax by individuals,

was repealed by section 412 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

(DEFRA), Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 792.    That repeal was

contemporaneous with the amendment of section 6654 in DEFRA

section 411.    DEFRA sections 411 and 412, 98 Stat. 788, 792, were

among the simplification provisions effectuated by consolidating

into section 6654 all rules relating to payments of estimated

tax.

       Sections 6654(c) and (d), as in effect for the years in

issue, set forth the number of required installments and the

amount of required installments of estimated tax due from

individuals.    Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for

failure to make the required payments.    The addition to tax

determined by respondent by reason of petitioner’s failure to

make the estimated tax payments is mandatory, with exceptions not

applicable in this case.    See, e.g., Grosshandler v.

Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21 (1980).

Section 6651(a)

       Finally, petitioner contends that her attempts to secure

explanations from the IRS about her arguments were reasonable
                               - 7 -

cause for her failure to file returns for the years in issue.

They were not.   Petitioner apparently did not consult with an

attorney or accountant or any competent tax professional before

discontinuing her prior history of filing tax returns.     She cites

innumerable cases out of context, while ignoring the innumerable

cases upholding the validity of the Federal income tax and

rejecting arguments by individuals that they are not required to

file Federal income tax returns and pay Federal income taxes.

Her failure to file returns for the years in issue was not due to

reasonable cause.   She is liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a) as determined by respondent.

                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.
