                        T.C. Memo. 2003-202



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 JAMES R. CICIORA, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 10100-02.              Filed July 10, 2003.



     James R. Ciciora, pro se.

     J. Craig Young, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     DINAN, Special Trial Judge:   Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $1,665 for the

taxable year 1999.   Respondent, by an amendment to answer to

amended petition, seeks an increased deficiency totaling $8,950.

Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all
                                - 2 -

Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure.

     The issues for decision are:    (1) Whether the income

petitioner earned during 1999 is subject to Federal income

taxation; and (2) whether the deficiency determined in the

statutory notice of deficiency may be increased.    Petitioner

resided in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on the date the petition

was filed in this case.

     For taxable year 1999, petitioner submitted to the Internal

Revenue Service a Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

On this form, petitioner entered zeroes on the lines provided for

the amounts of income, deductions, and taxes due, but he claimed

an overpayment of $3,011 from withholding on certain wages he

earned.    Attached to this form were four Forms W-2, Wage and Tax

Statement, reflecting total taxable wages of $32,296.    There also

was attached one Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions,

Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance

Contracts, etc.    This form reflected a taxable distribution of

$13,123.    None of this income was reflected on the face of the

Form 1040A.    Respondent asserts that petitioner also received--in

addition to the amounts reflected on the attachments to the Form

1040A--wage income of $1,000 and self-employment income totaling

$3,156.    Taking into account each of these items of income,
                                - 3 -

respondent calculates petitioner’s total tax liability as follows:

     Wage and pension income                  $46,419
     Self-employment income                     3,156
     Standard deduction                        (4,300)
     Personal exemption deduction              (2,750)
     Self-employment income tax deduction        (223)
     Taxable income                            42,302

     Income tax                                 8,504
     Self-employment income tax                   446
     Total tax liability                        8,950

Petitioner admits that he received all of the income underlying

this calculation.

     In petitioner’s pleadings and at trial, petitioner makes

numerous assertions based upon frivolous arguments which do

little more than recite law which is irrelevant, taken completely

out of context, or otherwise misapplied.    “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.”    Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th

Cir. 1984).   Furthermore, petitioner’s arguments are essentially

political in nature.   This Court is not the proper place for

these arguments.    The function of this Court is to accurately and

justly apply the laws as they were written by Congress.

     After reviewing respondent’s calculation of petitioner’s tax

liability, detailed above, we conclude that this calculation has

been made in accordance with the provisions of the Internal

Revenue Code, and that the amounts of income tax and self-
                                - 4 -

employment income tax are the correct amounts imposed by section

1 and section 1401, respectively, on this income.

     Respondent seeks to increase the deficiency above which was

determined in the notice of deficiency.   Respondent bears the

burden of proof with respect to an increased deficiency.    Rule

142(a).   However, due to petitioner’s admissions concerning his

receipt of the income, there are no factual issues remaining with

respect to which respondent must meet this burden.

     Respondent explains the increased deficiency as follows:

Prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency, respondent

assessed taxes of $7,398 against petitioner for 1999.   This

assessment was made in the form of an assessment due to a

“mathematical or clerical error” under the authority of section

6213(b)(1).   The amount of the assessment was based upon the

amounts of income shown on the Forms W-2 and Form 1099-R attached

to petitioner’s Form 1040A.   After this assessment, respondent

issued petitioner the notice of deficiency underlying this case,

with respect to the additional income which had not been

reflected in the initial assessment.    The total of the amounts of

the initial assessment, $7,398, and the deficiency in the notice,

$1,665, is $9,063.   The total deficiency now sought by respondent

is $8,950.    The discrepancy results from respondent’s erroneous

classification of $1,000 of income as self-employment income in

the notice of deficiency.   This error, which reduces the
                               - 5 -

deficiency reflected in the notice from $1,665 to $1,552, has

been corrected in the final calculation detailed above.

Respondent now asserts that the initial $7,398 assessment should

be abated and seeks to have the amounts of income reflected in

the initial assessment included in the redetermination of

petitioner’s deficiency.

     This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, in that this

Court possesses only the adjudicatory powers that Congress has

conferred upon it.   Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527 (1985).

As is relevant to the present case, the adjudicatory power of

this Court encompasses the redetermination of deficiencies

determined in statutory notices of deficiency.   Sec. 6214(a).   A

deficiency is defined generally as follows:

          SEC. 6211(a). In General.--For purposes of this title
     * * * the term “deficiency” means the amount by which the
     tax imposed * * * exceeds * * * --

           (1) the sum of

                (A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer
           upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer
           and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer
           thereon, plus

                (B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected
           without assessment) as a deficiency * * *

The amount of a deficiency is determined without regard to the

amount of taxes withheld on a taxpayer’s income.   Sec. 6211(a),

(b)(1).   However, the amount of withheld taxes and any other
                               - 6 -

payments made by a taxpayer are taken into account in the Court’s

determination of any overpayment under section 6512(b).

     A deficiency of income tax generally must be assessed

pursuant to the deficiency procedures prescribed under sections

6211 through 6215.   However, where a “mathematical or clerical

error” appears on a return, upon proper notification to the

taxpayer the amount of tax due which results from such an error

may be assessed summarily.   Sec. 6213(b)(1).   The normal

deficiency procedures must be followed for an assessment of this

amount where a taxpayer requests an abatement of the assessment

within the prescribed period of time.   Sec. 6213(b)(2)(A).

     Generally, where an amount is assessed as being due to a

mathematical or clerical error under section 6213(b)(1), such

amount is subtracted from a taxpayer’s correct total tax

liability in the calculation of the amount of a deficiency under

section 6211(a).   Sec. 6211(a)(1)(B); Heasley v. Commissioner, 45

T.C. 448, 458 (1966).   Nevertheless, where an amount has been

assessed under section 6213(b)(1), but is abated after the

taxpayer petitions this Court with respect to a deficiency for

the same taxable year, this Court may redetermine a deficiency

which includes the amount of the abated assessment.    Burford v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-466, affd. without published

opinion 813 F.2d 400 (4th Cir. 1986).   This Court’s jurisdiction

to redetermine a deficiency entails a redetermination of the
                                 - 7 -

correct amount of the deficiency as of the date a decision is

entered by the Court; the entire deficiency need not have existed

at the time the notice of deficiency was mailed.        Id.   Thus, a

computation under Rule 155 will be necessary in this case to

calculate the correct amount of the remaining deficiency with

respect to petitioner’s overall tax liability of $8,950, taking

into account any abatement by respondent.       If an abatement has

not been made by respondent with respect to the prior assessment

of $7,398, however, the amount of the deficiency cannot exceed

petitioner’s total tax liability less the amount of this

assessment.   Sec. 6211(a)(1)(B); Heasley v. Commissioner, supra.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         Decision will be entered

                                 under Rule 155.
