                      T.C. Memo. 2005-84



                  UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              HARRY E. MATHEWS, Petitioner v.
       COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2515-04.             Filed April 12, 2005.



     Harry E. Mathews, pro se.

     Daniel N. Price, for respondent.



                      MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WHALEN, Judge:    Petitioner did not file an income

tax return for 2000 or 2001.     In separate notices of

deficiency, respondent determined the following

deficiencies and additions in petitioner’s tax for

those years:
                                     - 2 -
                                    Additions to Tax
                                              Sec.            Sec.
 Year         Tax       Sec. 6651(a)(1)    6651(a)(2)1       6654(a)
                                             1
 2000       $2,161.10      $484.22            $312.05       $116.23
                                              1
 2001        3,557.40      790.52               298.64       140.77

        1
       Respondent concedes that no return was prepared by the
 Secretary, pursuant to sec. 6020(b), and that petitioner is not
 liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(2). See sec.
 6651(g).


All section references in this opinion are to the Internal

Revenue Code.

     Petitioner filed an imperfect petition ostensibly

seeking redetermination of those deficiencies.

Petitioner’s imperfect petition states as follows:


          I have filed a petition each year for the
     past 18 years. All you ever do is steal my fil-
     ing fee. Even when it was $15.00. I have never
     been given a Court date. You have no intentions
     of ever giving me a Court date because you do not
     want to deal with this matter. One day it will
     be on National news and all of America will know
     how you have done me.


     The Court issued an order stating that petitioner’s

imperfect petition did not comply with the Rules of the

Court as to the form and content and noting that the filing

fee had not been paid.        The Court ordered petitioner to

file a proper amended petition and to pay the filing fee

on or before a certain date.           Petitioner filed an amended

petition but did not pay the filing fee.                 For cause, the

Court waived the filing fee in this case.
                            - 3 -

     The following are the reasons set forth in the amended

petition why petitioner believes he is entitled to relief:


     Since 1976 I have been the victim of an eleborate
     [sic] fraud. Each and every year I have tried to
     get the IRS and or Tax Court to address and
     fairly assess what I have been telling them.
     They have chose [sic] to to [sic] lie and cover-
     up this criminal conduct. It has been easier to
     ignore me than allow the truth to be known.


     At the outset, we note that the Court is unable to

verify the statement in petitioner’s imperfect petition

that petitioner has “filed a petition each year for the

past 18 years.”   Similarly, the Court cannot verify the

statement in petitioner’s amended petition that “Since

1976 * * * [in] Each and every year I have tried to get

the IRS and or Tax Court to address and fairly assess

what I have been telling them.”

     The records of this Court show that, in addition

to the instant petition, petitioner has filed two other

petitions; viz docket Nos. 18366-90 and 5762-02L.    In

the case of the petition at docket No. 18366-90, the

Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.   The Court issued a notice of filing of

the Commissioner’s motion and directed petitioner to

file an objection by a date certain.   Petitioner filed
                            - 4 -

no objection and, as a result, the Court granted the

Commissioner’s motion to dismiss.

     In the case of the petition at docket No. 5762-02L,

the Court entered an order directing petitioner to file

a proper “amended petition for lien or levy action under

Code section 6320(c) or 6330(d)” and to pay the filing fee.

Petitioner paid the filing fee, but he never filed an

amended petition.   The Court extended the time for filing

the amended petition in four subsequent orders and finally

dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction when it

received no amended petition.

     The instant case is presently before the Court to

decide respondent’s motion for summary judgment.   In that

motion, as mentioned above, respondent concedes that

petitioner is not liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay the tax shown on a

return because petitioner did not file a return for 2000

or 2001 and respondent did not prepare a return for

petitioner pursuant to section 6020(b).   Accordingly,

respondent’s motion is deemed to be a motion for partial

summary judgment.
                            - 5 -

     Respondent’s motion points out that “petitioner’s sole

issue set forth in his Amended Petition is that he has

‘been the victim of an eleborate [sic] fraud’”, a theory

that, respondent asserts, “has no bearing on the tax

deficiencies set forth in the notice of deficiency for

tax years 2000 and 2001.”   Respondent’s motion details

petitioner’s fraud theory, which involves petitioner’s

divorce and a Florida State court order under which

petitioner’s wages were garnished to pay child support

for a child who petitioner claims does not exist.

     Respondent’s motion also details the factual basis for

finding that petitioner had earned the income underlying

the taxes and additions to tax determined in the subject

notices of deficiency.   Respondent’s motion states that

during the years in issue petitioner received income from

three sources:   (1) Wages from the City of Austin, Texas,

for work as a crossing guard; (2) distributions of

retirement pay from the Defense Finance and Accounting

Service attributable to his retirement from the U.S. Air

Force; and (3) a distribution from the Prudential Insurance

Co. of America (herein Prudential) attributable to the

cancellation of a life insurance contract for failure to

pay a policy loan.   Petitioner’s income from these sources

is summarized as follows:
                             - 6 -
     Year                  Payor                 Amount

     2000      City of Austin, Texas             $1,408
               Defense Fin. and Acctg. Service   12,121
                                                 13,529

     2001      City of Austin, Texas              1,540
               Defense Fin. and Acctg. Service   12,551
               Prudential Ins. Co.                5,213
                                                 19,304


     Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is supported

by the declaration of Daniel N. Price, respondent’s trial

attorney, and the exhibits attached thereto.     The attached

exhibits include a copy of a letter from the payroll

manager for the City of Austin, Texas, who transmitted to

the Internal Revenue Service copies of the Forms W-2, Wage

and Tax Statement, that had been issued to petitioner for

2000 and 2001, showing that petitioner had been paid wages

of $1,408.75 and $1,540, respectively, as well as other

documents relating to petitioner’s employment by the City

of Austin, Texas.   The exhibits also include a letter from

a representative of the Retired Pay Department of the

Defense Finance and Accounting Service, who transmitted to

the Internal Revenue Service copies of the Forms 1099-R,

Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or

Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc.,

that had been issued to petitioner for 2000 and 2001,

showing that distributions of retirement pay had been made

to petitioner of $12,121.92 and $12,551.88, respectively.
                               - 7 -

Finally, the exhibits include copies of a letter from a

representative of Prudential to the Internal Revenue

Service and a Form   1099-R.    Those documents state that a

life insurance contract owned by petitioner had lapsed in

2001 and that petitioner had realized $5,213.19 of taxable

gain from the contract.

     Petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion for

summary judgment is in the form of a letter addressed not

only to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Tax Court, but also to

“the Honorable Kofi Annan, General Secretary, The United

Nations, The Honorable George W. Bush, President, United

States of America, The Honorable Senators and Congress of

the United States of America, David E. Graham, Chairman

of the Board, the Washington Post Company, Mark W. Everson,

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, John Danforth,

United States Ambassador, The United Nations, and Ruth

Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, the United States

Supreme Court”.

     Attached to petitioner’s letter are a variety of

documents, including copies of court papers from the

garnishment proceedings; correspondence; newspaper

articles; legal materials, such as copies of statutes;

and financial documents, such as copies of checks.     These

documents appear to involve petitioner’s attempt to notify
                            - 8 -

various organizations, including the General Accounting

Office, Office of the Inspector General of the Department

of the Army, Office of the Governor of the State of

Florida, Office of the Governor of the State of Texas,

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and others, of the

injustice that he perceives took place when his wages were

garnished to pay child support.

     Whatever else might be said of petitioner’s letter

response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment and

the documents attached thereto, we perceive no connection

between them and the deficiencies and additions to tax

determined by respondent in the subject notices of

deficiency.   Nowhere in those documents does petitioner

address his tax liabilities for taxable years 2000 and 2001

or present any basis on which to conclude that respondent

erred in the determinations at issue in this case.

     Neither petitioner's imperfect petition nor his

amended petition makes a clear and concise assignment of

any error which petitioner alleges was committed by the

Commissioner in the subject determinations of his tax for

2000 or 2001, as required by the Rules of this Court.    See

Rule 34(b)(4).   All Rule references are to the Tax Court

Rules of Practice and Procedure.    Thus, petitioner makes no

justiciable claim in his pleadings.    After the pleadings
                            - 9 -

had closed by at least 30 days, respondent filed the motion

for summary judgment that is presently before the Court for

decision.   In that motion, respondent presents matters

outside the pleadings and asks the Court to grant summary

judgment against petitioner.   A motion for summary judgment

is appropriate in these circumstances.   See Rules 120(b)

and 121.

     Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation

and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.   See Fla. Peach

Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).    Summary

judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of

the legal issues in controversy "if the pleadings, answers

to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other

acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any,

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law."

Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518,

520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988); Naftel v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
                            - 10 -

     In this case, petitioner’s response to respondent’s

motion for summary judgment does not deny respondent’s

proof, set forth in the declaration of respondent’s trial

attorney, and the exhibits attached thereto, that

petitioner had received, and is subject to tax on, the

income underlying respondent's determination of the tax

deficiencies and additions to tax for 2000 and 2001.

Petitioner’s response does not address the notices of

deficiency issued to him.   Instead, he continues to advance

his position that “the United States Department of Justice,

the United States Department of Defense, the United States

Postal Service and Internal Revenue Service are actively

involved in unprecedented corruptions and criminality” and

other extraneous matters involving the garnishment of his

wages for child support.

     By failing to assign any error to the notices of

deficiency, including the additions to tax determined

therein, petitioner is deemed to have conceded the

deficiencies and additions to tax, and respondent is

relieved of the burden of production under section

7491(c) to produce evidence that the additions to tax

determined for 2000 and 2001 are appropriate.    See Funk

v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 217-218 (2004); Swain v.

Commissioner, 118 T.C. 358, 363-365 (2002).     Accordingly,
                           - 11 -

on the basis of the record of this case, we find that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that a

decision may be rendered for respondent as a matter of law.

     It is necessary to give petitioner a word of warning.

The Court considers petitioner’s position in this case to

be frivolous or groundless.   It also appears that he has

instituted or maintained these proceedings primarily for

delay.   Section 6673(a) authorizes the Court to require

a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in

excess of $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that:

(a) Proceedings before it have been instituted or

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

taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or

groundless; or (c) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to

pursue available administrative remedies.    Sec. 6673(a)(1).

Petitioner is hereby warned that the Court will not

hesitate to impose a penalty under section 6673(a) against

him in any appropriate case in the future.
                          - 12 -

     Upon consideration of the above, including

respondent’s concession of the addition to tax under

section 6651(a)(2),

                                   An appropriate order and

                           decision granting respondent's

                           motion for summary judgment,

                           deemed to be a motion for

                           partial summary judgment,

                           will be entered.
