                          T.C. Memo. 2006-146



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                    HENRY LINK, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 11065-04, 20809-04.1      Filed July 10, 2006.



     Henry Link, pro se.

     J. Craig Young, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WELLS, Judge:   Respondent determined deficiencies in tax and

additions to tax for petitioner’s taxable years 1998, 1999, 2000,

2001, and 2002.   After concessions the amounts remaining in

dispute are as follows:


     1
      These cases are consolidated for trial, briefing, and
opinion.
                                - 2 -

          Year           Deficiency     Sec. 6651(a)(1)

          1998              $742            $185.50

          1999              $725            $181.25

          2000              $692            $173

          2001              $652            $163

          2002              $584            $146

     The issues we must decide are:

     1.   Whether the Court should grant petitioner’s motion to

reopen the record in order to allow petitioner to introduce

evidence that he had the opportunity to introduce at trial but

failed to introduce or offer.

     2.   Whether certain interest and pension income received by

petitioner during each taxable year in issue is includable in

gross income.

     3.   Whether petitioner’s correct filing status for each

taxable year in issue is that of an unmarried individual.

     4.   Whether petitioner is entitled to claim an additional

personal exemption for his alleged wife for each taxable year in

issue.

     5.   Whether petitioner has substantiated certain Schedule

A, Itemized Deductions, for each taxable year in issue.

     6.   Whether petitioner’s failure to file Federal income tax

returns for each taxable year in issue was due to reasonable

cause and not due to willful neglect.

     7.   Whether the Court should grant respondent’s motion to
                               - 3 -

impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673.

     All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as

amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure.

                            Background

     At the time of filing the petition in the instant case,

petitioner resided in Greenville, South Carolina.   Petitioner is

affiliated with the “Patriot Network”, a tax protester

organization that promotes tax protester arguments.   Petitioner

failed to file Federal income tax returns and pay taxes for

taxable years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.   Based on Forms

1099 issued by third parties, respondent determined that

petitioner had received:   (1) Interest income of $13, $21, $30,

$39, and $1,881 in taxable years 1998 through 2002, respectively;

and (2) $12,948 of taxable pension income during each taxable

year in issue.   Respondent determined deficiencies in income tax

and section 6651(a)(1) and section 66542 additions to tax and

sent petitioner separate notices of deficiency for each taxable

year in issue.   Respondent computed the deficiencies using the

tax rates under section 1(c) for an unmarried individual who is

not a head of household or a surviving spouse.    Respondent also

determined that petitioner was entitled to one personal exemption

and one standard deduction for each tax year.    Petitioner timely



     2
      Respondent now concedes the sec. 6654 additions to tax.
                               - 4 -

petitioned this Court.

                             Discussion

     As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determinations in the

notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden of

proving an error is on the taxpayer.3     Rule 142(a); Welch v.

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).      Under section 7491(c), the

Commissioner’s burden of production is to produce evidence that

it is appropriate to impose the relevant penalty, addition to

tax, or additional amount.   Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438,

446 (2001).   The Commissioner, however, does not have the

obligation to introduce evidence regarding reasonable cause.      Id.

at 446-47.

     We first address petitioner’s motion to reopen the record.

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to an additional

dependent exemption for his wife.   Despite several requests by

respondent’s counsel for any documents relevant to issues in the

instant case, petitioner refused to provide any evidence that

proved he was married.   Petitioner appeared at trial and again

refused to provide any evidence, contending that he believed that

he did not have to prove facts known in his community.



Petitioner also contended that a house fire had destroyed many of



     3
      Sec. 7491(a)(1) does not apply in the instant case because
petitioner refused to comply with respondent’s requests for
information and documents. See sec. 7491(a)(2).
                               - 5 -

his documents several years earlier.   Shortly after trial, on

January 24, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to reopen the record

in order to submit evidence of his marriage.4

     Respondent contends that this Court should deny petitioner’s

motion because respondent had requested the evidence from

petitioner, and petitioner had numerous chances to provide the

evidence prior to and at trial and repeatedly refused and failed

to do so.   In the alternative, respondent requests that, if this

Court grants petitioner’s motion, respondent be allowed

additional time to subpoena petitioner’s spouse’s son to prove

that petitioner’s spouse has her own income and cannot be claimed

as petitioner’s dependent.5   We deny petitioner’s motion to

reopen the record to admit the evidence because it is the policy

of the Court to try all of the issues raised in a case in one

proceeding to avoid piecemeal and protracted litigation.    Haft

Trust v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 145, 147 (1974), vacated 510 F.2d

43 (1st Cir. 1975).   Petitioner was given ample opportunity to



     4
      Specifically, petitioner sought to introduce a marriage
certificate and his spouse’s Social Security number.
     5
      In petitioner’s motion he states that, because he was so
angered by respondent’s refusal to accept his word as proof of
his marital status, he forgot that he was able to provide the
requested information. Petitioner further states that he
retrieved his spouse’s Social Security number from her son who
handles all her banking. Petitioner also states that his wife
receives Social Security income. Respondent cites sec. 151(b)
and Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-251, for the
proposition that any income petitioner’s spouse receives, however
small, bars petitioner from claiming his spouse as a dependent.
                                - 6 -

provide this evidence both prior to and at trial, and he

stubbornly refused to do so.   Moreover, petitioner refused to

abide by the Court’s standing pretrial order that requires all

documents that a party expects to utilize at trial be provided to

the other party at least 14 days in advance of the trial

calendar.    Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to reopen the record

is denied.

     Gross income includes interest and pension income.    Sec.

61(a)(4), (11).   Petitioner does not deny that he received the

interest and pension income but argues that the pension income is

“labor property” and that the interest income is so insignificant

that it falls below the threshold requiring him to file.    We

understand petitioner’s argument to mean that he receives his

pension income from his former employer for whom he once

performed services (or labor), and that any amount he receives in

exchange for his labor is a nontaxable exchange of equal value.

That argument has been rejected by every court that has addressed

the issue and is the type of frivolous tax protester argument

that wastes the Court’s time and resources.   We do not address

petitioner’s “labor property” argument with somber reasoning and

copious citations of precedent, as to do so might suggest that

petitioner’s argument possesses some degree of colorable merit.

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

Petitioner’s total pension and interest income for each taxable
                                 - 7 -

year in issue exceeded the sum of the standard deduction and

personal exemption.   Sec. 6012(a)(1).   Accordingly, petitioner

was required to file income tax returns for taxable years 1998

through 2002.

     A taxpayer may claim married filing jointly status if he and

his spouse are legally eligible to file jointly and in fact do

file.   See secs. (1)(a), 6013; Columbus v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1998-60, affd. without published opinion 162 F.3d 1172

(10th Cir. 1998).   Petitioner did not file tax returns during

each year in issue.   As noted above, petitioner was given

multiple opportunities to present corroborating evidence

regarding his marital status but stubbornly refused to do so.      We

therefore do not accept petitioner’s uncorroborated assertion of

his marital status.   Consequently, we hold that petitioner has

failed to prove that his filing status is not that of an

unmarried individual.   Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, supra.

Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to married filing jointly

status.

     A taxpayer filing a separate return may claim an exemption

for his spouse if his spouse has no gross income and is not the

dependent of another taxpayer.    Sec. 151(b).   Petitioner contends

that he is entitled to claim his spouse as a dependent.    Even

assuming that petitioner is married, petitioner presented no

evidence that his spouse does not have any income of her own.
                                - 8 -

See Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-251; sec. 1.151-1(b),

Income Tax Regs.   Petitioner’s motion to reopen the record

states that his spouse receives Social Security income.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to an

additional exemption under section 151.   Rule 142(a); Welch v.

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

     In his petition to this Court, petitioner claimed that he

had several deductible Schedule A expenses including church

donations, medical expenses, State and local taxes, and a

casualty loss.   Petitioner has not presented any evidence

substantiating these expenses or showing that such expenses

totaled more than the standard deduction.   At trial, petitioner

offered no testimony or other evidence concerning such expenses.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to any

claimed Schedule A expenses.    Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,

supra.

     Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for a failure

to file an income tax return.   A taxpayer may be relieved of the

addition to tax, however, if he can demonstrate that the “failure

* * * [is] due to reasonable cause and not due to willful

neglect”.   Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 446-447.     Willful

neglect means intentional failure or reckless indifference.

United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985).   Section

301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., provides that, if a
                                - 9 -

taxpayer exercises ordinary business care and prudence and is

nevertheless unable to file on time, then the delay is due to

reasonable cause.   Petitioner did not timely file tax returns

during the years in issue because he believed that his pension

income was a nontaxable exchange of equal value for his labor and

that filing income tax returns is merely voluntary.     Petitioner’s

misguided interpretations of the Constitution and other typical

tax protester arguments are not reasonable cause.     See Yoder v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-116.      Accordingly, we hold that

petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section

6651(a)(1) for taxable years 1998 through 2002.

     Section 6673(a)(1) provides that this Court may require the

taxpayer to pay a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it

appears to this Court:   (a) The proceedings were instituted or

maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay; (b) the

taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless; (c) or the

taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative

remedies.    Respondent has moved that the Court impose a penalty

in the instant case because petitioner admitted at trial that he

received the amounts in dispute but argued his pension income was

nontaxable “labor property” and that our “Marxist” tax system is

voluntary.   Petitioner received several warnings that this Court

could impose a penalty if petitioner persisted in raising

frivolous arguments.   Despite being warned, petitioner
                             - 10 -

nonetheless appeared at trial and raised frivolous arguments.

Accordingly, we shall impose a penalty on petitioner of $1,500

pursuant to section 6673.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Appropriate orders and

                                      decisions will be entered.
