                         T.C. Memo. 2009-122



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            GARY C. LIZALEK, ET AL.,1 Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos.    3202-07L, 14297-07,   Filed June 1, 2009.
                   14298-07, 14299-07.



     Gary C. Lizalek and Karen N. Lizalek, pro sese.

     Frederic J. Fernandez and Mark J. Miller, for respondent.




     1
      Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated
herewith: Karen N. Lizalek, docket No. 14297-07; Gary C.
Lizalek, docket No. 14298-07; Gary C. Lizalek, docket No. 14299-
07.
                                       - 2 -

                  MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


       GOEKE, Judge:     These consolidated cases are before the Court

on petitions for redetermination of three statutory notices of

deficiency and a notice of intent to levy.

       Respondent determined Federal income tax deficiencies,

additions to tax, and penalties against Gary C. Lizalek

(petitioner) and Karen N. Lizalek for 2001 through 2005 arising

from income petitioner received as follows:

Gary C. Lizalek, docket No. 14298-07:

                                         Additions to Tax
Year      Deficiency     Sec. 6651(a)(1)    Sec. 6651(a)(2)             Sec. 6654

2001      $18,988           $3,111                      $3,457          $530
2002        4,114              926                         987           137
2003        4,254              957                         766           111
2004       11,794            2,654                       1,415           342
2005        3,329              749                         200           134

Karen N. Lizalek, docket No. 14297-07:

                                       Additions to Tax/Penalty
Year   Deficiency    Sec. 6651(a)(1)    Sec. 6651(a)(2)     Sec. 6654   Sec. 6662

2001    $13,864          $3,119                $3,466            $554      ---
2002      4,613            ---                   ---              ---     $923
2003      4,254             957                   766             111      ---
2004     11,794           2,654                 1,415             138      ---
2005      3,329             749                   200             134      ---

Respondent seeks increased deficiencies and additions to tax

against petitioner in the event the Court finds that his income

is not attributable to Karen Lizalek pursuant to the Wisconsin

Uniform Marital Property Act.          Wisc. Stat. Ann. ch. 766 (West

2009).    Respondent also assessed a $500 civil penalty against
                               - 3 -

petitioner in docket No. 3202-07L under section 6682 for 2005 for

providing a false Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance

Certificate.

     As a protective measure, respondent issued a notice of

deficiency to the Gary C. Lizalek Trust (Lizalek Trust) for 2003,

2004, and 2005 in the event that we find that petitioner and/or

Karen Lizalek are not subject to tax on the income at issue.2

Respondent determined Federal income tax deficiencies and

penalties against the Lizalek Trust as follows:

Gary C. Lizalek, docket No. 14299-07:

                                               Penalty
           Year           Deficiency          Sec. 6662

           2003            $25,438             $5,088
           2004             59,448             11,890
           2005             23,432              4,686

     Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.   Amounts are rounded to

the nearest dollar.

     The issues for decision are:

     (1)   Whether petitioner is subject to tax on wages, capital

gains, dividends, and/or interest income at issue for 2001




     2
      The term “trust” is used in this opinion for convenience
only and is not intended to be conclusive as to the
characterization of the Lizalek Trust for Federal tax purposes.
                                - 4 -

through 2005 or whether the income may be reported on trust

returns.    We hold he is subject to tax;

     (2)    whether Karen Lizalek is taxable on half of

petitioner’s income as community property.      We hold she is not;

     (3)    whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for

failure to file under section 6651(a)(1), failure to pay under

section 6651(a)(2), and failure to pay estimated tax under

section 6654(a) for 2001 through 2005.      We hold he is;

     (4)    whether Karen Lizalek is liable for additions to tax

for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1), failure to pay

under section 6651(a)(2), and failure to pay estimated tax under

section 6654(a) for 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005 and for a section

6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for 2002.      We hold she is not

liable;

     (5)    whether petitioner is liable for a section 6682 penalty

for 2005 for submitting false withholding information to his

employer.    We hold he is liable;

     (6)    whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under

section 6673 for instituting these proceedings primarily for

delay and for maintaining frivolous or groundless positions.      We

hold he is not liable; and
                                 - 5 -

     (7)   whether respondent is liable for a section 6673 penalty

for violation of his fiduciary duties and for failing to provide

exculpatory evidence.     We hold respondent is not liable.3

                           FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated.      The stipulations of

facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this

reference.   Petitioner and Karen Lizalek resided in Wisconsin at

the time of filing their petitions.

     In 2001 petitioner was an employee of both Motorola, Inc.,

and Innovatec Communications, LLC (Innovatec), and earned wage

income of $22,172 and $62,019, respectively.       In 2001 petitioner

received retirement distributions from Advanced Clearing, Inc.,

Arrowhead Trust, Inc., Sterling Trust Co., and First Trust Corp.

of $29,322, $3,000, $2,525, and $16,481, respectively.       In 2001

petitioner received a capital gain distribution of $14 from

Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

     In 2002 petitioner was an employee of Innovatec and

Administaff Cos. II, LP (Administaff), and earned wage income of

$32,539 and $34,473, respectively.       In 2002 petitioner also

received interest income of $11 from Sovereign Bank.

     In 2003 petitioner was an employee of Administaff and earned

wage income of $75,122.

     3
      Because we hold that petitioner is subject to tax on the
income at issue, we do not sustain the deficiencies and penalties
determined against the Lizalek Trust.
                                 - 6 -

     In 2004 petitioner was an employee of Administaff and Silver

Springs Networks and earned wage income of $21,131 and $61,216,

respectively.   In 2004 petitioner sold a 50-percent interest in a

residence located in Glendale, Wisconsin, for $90,000.

     In 2005 petitioner was an employee of both Silver Springs

Networks and Invivo Corp. & Subs. (Invivo) and earned wage income

of $59,141 and $6,460, respectively.

     For the years at issue petitioner’s employers reported his

wages on Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.     None of the

employers withheld Federal or State income taxes from

petitioner’s wages.   Some of the Forms W-2 listed various

Wisconsin addresses for petitioner.      Others listed petitioner’s

address as Oak Lawn, Illinois.    In addition, petitioner received

a Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement

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

each retirement distribution, and Form 1099-B, Proceeds from

Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions, for the capital gain

distribution.   The Forms 1099-R and Form 1099-B listed a

Wisconsin address for petitioner.    Petitioner reported the wages

and other income on Forms 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for

Estates and Trusts, filed for the Lizalek Trust, listing an

address in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

     On each Form 1041 filed for the Lizalek Trust for the years

at issue, the Lizalek Trust claimed deductions that offset any
                                - 7 -

income reported.   Accordingly, the Forms 1041 did not report any

tax due.   Respondent prepared substitute returns under section

6020(b) for petitioner for 2001 through 2005 and for Karen

Lizalek for 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005.     Karen Lizalek filed a

Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2002.

1.   Assessment and Levy of Section 6682 Penalty

      Petitioner submitted a Form W-4 to Silver Springs Networks

for 2005 that indicated he was “exempt” from withholding.     On the

Form W-4 petitioner certified that he had no tax liability for

2004 and he did not expect to have a tax liability for 2005.

During 2005 Silver Springs Networks did not withhold Federal

income tax from petitioner’s wages.     On January 9, 2006,

respondent assessed a $500 civil penalty against petitioner for

submitting a false Form W-4.    Before assessing the penalty,

respondent provided petitioner with an opportunity to provide a

new Form W-4.   However, petitioner continued to claim that he was

exempt from withholding.    After making several unsuccessful

requests for payment of the civil penalty, respondent issued a

final notice of intent to levy on July 1, 2006, with respect to

the unpaid civil penalty.    On July 11, 2006, petitioner requested

a collection due process hearing (CDP hearing) for the levy.

       On October 31, 2006, the settlement officer assigned to

petitioner’s case held a hearing by telephone.     During the CDP

hearing petitioner claimed that he was exempt from withholding
                                - 8 -

because the Lizalek Trust earned the wages at issue.      He argued

that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accepted that the Lizalek

Trust existed when it assigned an employer identification number

(EIN) to the Lizalek Trust in 2000.      Petitioner refused to

discuss payment of the penalty and did not provide any collection

alternatives.    The settlement officer determined that

petitioner’s position was frivolous.      On January 16, 2008,

respondent issued a notice of determination sustaining the

assessment of the section 6682 penalty and the levy.

2.   Sanctions

      On March 11, 2008, respondent filed a motion to impose

sanctions against petitioner in docket No. 14298-07 for

instituting the action primarily for delay and for advancing

frivolous and groundless arguments.      On April 28, 2008,

petitioners filed a motion to impose sanctions against respondent

in each of the docketed cases claiming respondent violated his

fiduciary duties and withheld exculpatory evidence relating to

tax forms.

                               OPINION

A.    Reporting of Income

      Section 61(a) defines gross income as “all income from

whatever source derived”.    A fundamental principle of income

taxation is that income is taxable to the person who earns it.

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114-115 (1930).      An anticipatory
                                - 9 -

assignment of income from a true income earner to another entity

by means of a contractual arrangement does not relieve the true

income earner from tax and is not effective for Federal income

tax purposes regardless of whether the contract is valid under

State law.    Id.; Vercio v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1246, 1253

(1980).   Although taxpayers are entitled to arrange and conduct

their affairs and structure their transactions to minimize taxes,

a trust is disregarded for Federal tax purposes if it lacks

economic substance and was formed solely for tax avoidance

purposes.    Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935); Zmuda

v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 714, 719-720 (1982), affd. 731 F.2d 1417

(9th Cir. 1984).

     Petitioner contends that the Social Security Administration

(SSA) created the Lizalek Trust when it issued a Social Security

card to petitioner, which constituted a transfer of property.

Petitioner further contends that he serves as trustee and the

United States is the sole beneficiary.   Petitioner asserts that

he submitted a written indenture for the Lizalek Trust to the SSA

reflecting this relationship that the SSA accepted based on its

failure to respond as required by the Privacy Act and the

Administrative Procedure Act.   Similarly, petitioner argues that

the IRS accepted that the Lizalek Trust existed when it assigned

an EIN to the Lizalek Trust upon submission of a Form SS-4,

Application for Employer Identification Number.   Finally,
                              - 10 -

petitioner argues that the Lizalek Trust was the employee that

earned the wages and other income at issue and that the trust

properly reported the income on Form 1041.    Respondent contends

that the purported trust does not exist in fact or alternatively

the Lizalek Trust is a sham or grantor trust.4

     Petitioner has not established that a valid trust exists.

The issuance of a Social Security card is not a transfer of

property that creates a trust as petitioner contends.

Petitioner’s submission of a purported trust document to the SSA

and a Form SS-4 to the IRS does not create or in any way

acknowledge the existence of a trust.   Petitioner has not

provided any legitimate trust documents forming the purported

trust.   The purported trust does not reflect economic reality and

is not recognized for Federal tax purposes.   Accordingly, we hold

that petitioner earned the wages and other income at issue, and

the income is includable in his gross income.    See McManus v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-68; Nichols v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2003-24, affd. 79 Fed. Appx. 282 (9th Cir. 2003).

     For 2004 respondent determined that petitioner is subject to

capital gains tax on $90,000 from the sale of a 50-percent

interest in real estate.   Although petitioner claims that he had


     4
      On brief petitioners raise evidentiary issues with respect
to certain exhibits respondent offered. The Court addressed the
admissibility of the exhibits at trial, and there is no basis to
reconsider the admission of the exhibits into evidence.
                                - 11 -

a basis of $67,000 in the property, he did not attempt to

substantiate his basis.   Nor did petitioner establish that he

qualifies for the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal

residence under section 121 because he did not show that he owned

and used the property as his principal residence for 2 or more

years during the 5-year period preceding the sale.   Finally,

petitioner did not establish that he is entitled to a long-term

capital loss carryover as reported on the 2004 Form 1041.

Accordingly, petitioner is subject to tax on $90,000 in capital

gain for 2004 from the sale of the real estate.5

B.   Income Attributable to Karen Lizalek Under Community
     Property Laws

     The deficiency determinations against Karen Lizalek are

based upon Wisconsin community property laws that attribute an

undivided one-half interest in one spouse’s income during the

marriage to the other spouse.    See Wis. Stat. Ann. sec. 766.31;

Gerczak v. Estate of Gerczak, 702 N.W.2d 72, 78 (Wis. Ct. App.

2005).   Respondent argues that petitioner and Karen Lizalek were

married and were domiciled in the State of Wisconsin during the

years at issue and were subject to the Wisconsin Uniform Marital

Property Act.   See Wis. Stat. Ann. sec. 766.31.   Petitioner

contends that he was a resident and domiciliary of the State of


     5
      The trust also reported the sale of a 50-percent interest
in the same property in 2002. Respondent did not determine a
deficiency with respect to the 2002 sale.
                               - 12 -

Illinois during the years at issue.     Petitioner and Karen Lizalek

further contend that they are not legally married.

       For Federal tax purposes the State law of the marital

domicile generally controls the determination of marital status.

See Dunn v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 361, 365-366 (1978), affd.

without published opinion 601 F.2d 599 (7th Cir. 1979); Eccles v.

Commissioner, 19 T.C. 1049, 1051 (1953), affd. per curiam 208

F.2d 796 (4th Cir. 1953).    In addition, the State law of the

taxpayer’s domicile, rather than a place of temporary residence,

controls the application of State community property laws.       Park

v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 252, 287 (1982), affd. without published

opinion 755 F.2d 181 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Webb v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1996-550.

       Although petitioner denies that he was domiciled in

Wisconsin during the years at issue, it is not necessary to

determine his State of domicile because we find that petitioner

and Karen Lizalek were not married during the years at issue.

Accordingly, they are not subject to Wisconsin community property

laws irrespective of petitioner’s State of domicile.    Petitioner

testified that he is married to Karen Lizalek under the laws of

God.    However, he testified that they do not have a valid State-

issued marriage license and they did not participate in a civil

marriage ceremony.    We find petitioner’s testimony to be

credible.    Common law marriage is not recognized in the State of
                              - 13 -

Wisconsin.   Watts v. Watts, 405 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Wis. 1987); see

Wis. Stat. Ann. sec. 765.16 (West 2009).    We hold that petitioner

and Karen Lizalek were not married during the years at issue for

purposes of Wisconsin community property laws and Karen Lizalek

is not liable for taxes on one-half of petitioner’s income.

Accordingly, there is no deficiency in Karen Lizalek’s taxes for

any year at issue.

     Respondent amended his answer to assert increased

deficiencies and additions to tax against petitioner in the event

that we find that the income at issue is not marital property.

Respondent bears the burden of proof with regard to any increased

deficiencies.   See Rule 142(a)(1).    For the reasons stated above,

respondent has met his burden of proof with respect to the

increased deficiencies.   We sustain respondent’s determination of

increased deficiencies against petitioner for each year at issue

on the basis that the entire amount of income at issue is

includable in his gross income.

C.   Additions to Tax and Penalty

     Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for

additions to tax for failure to timely file a return under

section 6651(a)(1), failure to timely pay tax under section

6651(a)(2), and failure to pay estimated income tax under section

6654(a), for each year at issue.    The Commissioner bears the

burden of production with respect to a taxpayer’s liability for
                              - 14 -

additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a).

Sec. 7491(c); Rule 142(a); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438,

446-447 (2001).   Once respondent meets his burden of production,

petitioner bears the burden of proof as to substantial authority,

reasonable cause, or similar provisions.   See sec. 7491(c); Rule

142(a); Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 446-447.     In an

amendment to answer, respondent asserted increased additions to

tax based on the asserted increased deficiencies for each year at

issue.   To the extent respondent bears the burden of proof for

the increased additions to tax, we find that respondent has met

that burden.   See Bhattacharyya v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-

19 n.19; Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-144.

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

file a return on the date prescribed unless such failure is due

to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.    Petitioner

did not file individual returns for the years at issue.       He

argues that the Lizalek Trust properly reported the income at

issue on Forms 1041.   Petitioner’s frivolous trust arguments do

not constitute reasonable cause for his failure to file.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section

6651(a)(1) addition to tax for each year at issue.

     Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for failure to

timely pay the amount shown as tax on a return unless such

failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.        The
                               - 15 -

addition to tax applies to an amount of tax shown on a return.

Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163, 170 (2003).    Respondent

prepared substitutes for returns for petitioner that meet the

requirements of section 6020(b).   The substitutes for returns are

treated as returns filed by the taxpayer for purposes of

determining the amount of a section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax.

Sec. 6651(g)(2).   Petitioner has not paid the tax due and has not

established that his failure to timely pay was due to reasonable

cause.   Accordingly, petitioner is liable for the section

6651(a)(2) addition to tax for each year at issue.

     Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax on an

underpayment of estimated tax.   A taxpayer generally must pay

estimated tax for a particular year if he has a “required annual

payment” for that year.    Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200,

211 (2006), affd. 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008).    A taxpayer’s

required annual payment is equal to the lesser of:   (1) 90

percent of the tax shown on the individual’s return for that

year, or if no return is filed, 90 percent of the tax for such

year, or (2) if the taxpayer filed a return for the immediately

preceding tax year, 100 percent of the tax shown on that return.

Sec. 6654(d)(1)(B); Wheeler v. Commissioner, supra at 210-211.

The Commissioner must produce evidence that the taxpayer failed

to file a return for the preceding year to establish a required

annual payment.    Wheeler v. Commissioner, supra at 210-212.
                                - 16 -

Petitioner did not file individual returns for 2001 through 2005

and did not pay estimated tax for those years.    In addition, he

did not file an individual return for 2000.    We do not find that

a statutory exception to the addition to tax applies for any year

at issue.   Therefore, petitioner is liable for the section

6654(a) additions to tax for 2001 through 2005.

     Respondent also determined additions to tax and a penalty

against Karen Lizalek.   Because we hold that Karen Lizalek does

not have unreported income and does not owe a tax deficiency for

any year at issue, she is not liable for the additions to tax or

the penalty.

D.   Section 6682 Penalty for Providing False Withholding
     Information

     Taxpayers have a right to a hearing before a levy is made on

any property.   Sec. 6330(a).   At the hearing a taxpayer may raise

any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or lien filing,

including challenges to the appropriateness of the collection

action and possible collection alternatives.    Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A).

Taxpayers may raise challenges to the existence or amount of the

underlying tax liability at a CDP hearing if they did not receive

a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to

dispute the underlying tax liability.    Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

     Following the hearing, the Appeals officer must determine

whether to proceed with the collection action, taking into

account verification that the requirements of applicable law and
                              - 17 -

administrative procedures have been met, any relevant issues the

taxpayer raised, and whether the collection action balances the

need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate

concern of the taxpayer that any collection action be no more

intrusive than necessary.   Sec. 6330(c)(3).

     For determinations made after October 16, 2006, we have

jurisdiction to review all determinations in section 6330

proceedings.   Sec. 6330(d)(1); Pension Protection Act of 2006,

Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 855, 120 Stat. 1019.     Respondent concedes

that the Court should consider the underlying merits of the

section 6682 penalty.   Where the validity of the underlying tax

liability is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter

de novo.   Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v.

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).     Otherwise, the Court

reviews the administrative determination regarding the collection

action for abuse of discretion.   Sego v. Commissioner, supra at

610; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182.     The abuse of discretion

standard requires the Court to decide whether the Appeals

officer’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or without

sound basis in fact or law.   Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.

1079, 1084 (1988).

     Section 6682(a) imposes a $500 civil penalty for providing

false information with respect to income tax withholding where

there is no reasonable basis for such information.    Respondent
                               - 18 -

imposed a section 6682 penalty against petitioner for submitting

a false Form W-4 for 2005 on which he claimed to be exempt from

Federal income tax withholding.    Petitioner received substantial

wages during 2004 and 2005 that he was required to report on his

individual returns.   He did not substantiate that he was entitled

to deductions for 2005 that would offset his tax liability from

his 2005 wages.   On the Form W-4 submitted petitioner falsely

claimed that he had no tax liability for 2004 or 2005, in order

to avoid Federal income tax withholding.   Petitioner argues that

he is not liable for the penalty because the Form W-4 was

submitted for the Lizalek Trust.   Petitioner’s arguments are

without merit and do not provide a reasonable basis for claiming

an exemption from withholding for 2005.    Accordingly, petitioner

is liable for the section 6682 penalty.

     In addition, the settlement officer did not abuse his

discretion in sustaining the levy against petitioner.    The

settlement officer verified that all requirements of applicable

law and administrative procedure were met and considered the

arguments petitioner raised.   See sec. 6330(c)(3).   During the

CDP hearing, petitioner made frivolous arguments that he was not

liable for taxes on his wages because the Lizalek Trust earned

the wages and reported them for both 2004 and 2005.    He refused

to discuss payment of the penalty and did not provide any

collection alternatives, stating that he would rather file for
                             - 19 -

bankruptcy than pay the $500 civil penalty.    We hold that

respondent did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the levy.

E.   Sanctions Under Section 6673

     Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to impose sanctions

against a taxpayer of up to $25,000 where the taxpayer (1)

institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for delay, (2)

advances frivolous or groundless positions, or (3) unreasonably

fails to pursue available administrative remedies.    Section

6673(a)(2)(B) authorizes the Court to impose sanctions against

the Commissioner for attorney misconduct by ordering the

Commissioner to pay attorney’s fees, excess costs, and expenses

incurred because of such conduct.

     Respondent filed a motion for sanctions against petitioner

in docket No. 14298-07 for maintaining this action primarily for

delay and asserting frivolous arguments.    Petitioners filed a

cross-motion for sanctions against respondent in each of the

docketed cases alleging that respondent breached his fiduciary

duties and withheld exculpatory evidence.    Petitioners assert

numerous frivolous arguments to support sanctions against

respondent relating to the Office of Management and Budget

numbers on tax forms and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44

U.S.C. secs. 3501-3520 (2000), respondent’s alleged intimidation,

threats of liens, and extortion to interfere with petitioner’s

obligations as the trustee of the Lizalek Trust, and respondent’s
                              - 20 -

purported attempts to defraud the United States as the

beneficiary of the Lizalek Trust.   There is no evidence of

attorney misconduct and no basis to impose sanctions against

respondent.   Accordingly, we shall deny petitioners’ motions for

sanctions.

     Although petitioner raised frivolous arguments in these

proceedings, we decline to impose sanctions against him at this

time because this is the first instance that he presented the

arguments in Federal court.   Accordingly, we shall deny

respondent’s motion for sanctions without prejudice to renew.    We

warn petitioner that his argument that an SSA-created trust

earned the wages and other income at issue and his use of Form

1041 to report his personal income are frivolous and without

merit.   This Court may impose a section 6673 penalty of up to

$25,000 if he institutes subsequent proceedings that advance

similar groundless arguments or if he engages in any conduct that

delays the final resolution of these proceedings.
                        - 21 -

To reflect the foregoing,


                                  An appropriate order and

                             decision will be entered in

                             docket No. 3202-07L.

                                  Decision will be entered

                             for petitioner in docket No.

                             14297-07.

                                  Decision will be entered

                             under Rule 155 in docket No.

                             14298-07.

                                  Decision will be entered

                             for petitioner in docket No.

                             14299-07.
