                          T.C. Memo. 1999-1



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              KEVIN JAMES CULLINANE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 10032-96.              Filed January 4, 1999.



     Kevin James Cullinane, pro se.

     Lisa N. Primavera, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     SWIFT, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency of $14,878

in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1993 and additions to tax

under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) in the amounts of $3,720

and $623, respectively.

     Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

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

all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure.

     The issues for decision are:   (1) Whether $46,818 that

petitioner received as compensation for services constitutes

taxable income; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for

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


                        FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

     When the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Newport

Beach, California.

     In 1993, petitioner received $46,818 as compensation for

services rendered as a lecturer and researcher for Miliken & Co.

     For 1993, petitioner did not make estimated tax payments,

and petitioner did not file an individual Federal income tax

return.

     On audit, respondent determined that petitioner received the

$46,818 as taxable income.   Respondent also determined that

petitioner is liable for the additions to tax.


                              OPINION

     Gross income is defined as all income from whatever source

derived, including compensation for services.    Sec. 61(a)(1).

     In general, respondent's determinations in a notice of

deficiency are presumed to be correct, and taxpayers bear the

burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous.     Rule

142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
                                 - 3 -

     Petitioner makes numerous tax protester arguments.

Petitioner argues that he has a basis in his labor equal to his

compensation and that therefore the $46,818 in compensation he

received in 1993 does not constitute taxable income.    Petitioner

also argues that the Federal income tax constitutes an excise tax

and that his compensation was not earned under any privilege or

license on which an excise tax can be imposed.

     Courts have consistently held that compensation for services

rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no

tax basis in their labor.     Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006,

1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005

(9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016

(9th Cir. 1981); Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 407 (1984);

Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-1122 (1983).

     Courts have also rejected the argument that a taxpayer is

liable for income tax only if the taxpayer has received a

privilege or license on which an excise tax can be imposed.

Olson v. United States, supra at 1005; United States v. Buras,

633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).

     Petitioner has stipulated that he received the $46,818 in

question as compensation for services.    We conclude that the

$46,818 petitioner received in 1993 from Miliken & Co.

constitutes taxable income.    We also reject petitioner's other

tax protester arguments.
                                 - 4 -

Additions to Tax

     Under section 6651(a)(1), an addition to tax is imposed for

failure to file a Federal income tax return.       This addition to

tax will not be imposed if it is shown that the failure to file

was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

     Petitioner has not presented any evidence that his failure

to file was due to reasonable cause.       Petitioner's argument that

he is not required to pay tax on compensation for services does

not constitute reasonable cause.    We conclude that petitioner is

liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

     Under section 6654(a), an addition to tax is imposed for

failure to make estimated income tax payments.       Petitioner

stipulated that he made no payments of estimated tax, and

petitioner does not assert that an exception applies.       We

conclude that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under

section 6654.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered

                                 for respondent.
