                         T.C. Memo. 2006-49



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 PAUL A. GASKINS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 21937-04.                Filed March 21, 2006.



     Paul A. Gaskins, pro se.

     Katherine Lee Kosar, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     HAINES, Judge:    Respondent determined a deficiency in

petitioner’s Federal income tax of $8,071 for tax year 2002.

     This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for

entry of decision.    Petitioner objects.
                                 - 2 -

                             Background

     Petitioner resided in Clinton, Ohio, when he filed the

petition and amended petitions.

     Petitioner reported zero wages and zero tax owed on his 2002

Federal income tax return.   Based upon third-party information,

on August 23, 2004, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to

petitioner for the 2002 tax year setting forth unreported Form W-

2, Wage and Statement, income of $51,114 and cancellation of

indebtedness income of $1,229.    Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2002 of $8,395

as well as an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of

$1,679.1

     Petitioner timely filed an imperfect petition with the Court

on November 15, 2004.   Petitioner then filed an amended petition

on January 3, 2005, disputing he owed the tax and asserting tax

protester rhetoric.   In response, on February 15, 2005,

respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.

     On February 16, 2005, this Court ordered petitioner to file

a second amended petition setting forth each error he alleged

respondent made in determining the deficiency and penalty.    The


     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. All Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless
otherwise indicated. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
                                - 3 -

petitioner was further ordered to provide separate statements of

every fact upon which he based the assignments of error.

Finally, the Court ordered that respondent’s motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, be

calendared for hearing at the Court’s motion session on March 23,

2005.    In the order, the Court also reminded the parties that

Rule 50(c) allows a party to submit a written statement in lieu

of or in addition to attending the hearing.

     Petitioner timely filed his second amended petition on March

10, 2005.    This case was called during the Court’s motions

session on March 23, 2005, for hearing on respondent’s motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.    Respondent appeared and was heard.   Petitioner did not

appear, nor did he file a written statement of his position

pursuant to Rule 50(c).

     The Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss.    However,

the Court ordered stricken so much of petitioner’s second amended

petition as was based upon frivolous tax protester arguments.     In

particular, the Court struck from petitioner’s petition the

allegation that his income of $51,114 in 2002 did not qualify as

taxable income under section 861.    As a result, petitioner’s

remaining assignments of error are:

     •      The IRS has listed $1,229 as income from cancellation
            of debt. The debt in question was the subject of
            bankruptcy. No debt was “forgiven”.; and
                                - 4 -


     •      The IRS has charged the Petitioner a penalty for filing
            a ‘frivolous’ return without establishing the basis for
            making such determination.

     On April 6, 2005, respondent filed an answer to the second

amended petition in which he conceded petitioner did not have

cancellation of indebtedness income in the amount of $1,299 and

was not liable for the section 6662(a) penalty.

     On November 17, 2005, respondent filed a motion for entry of

decision.    In the motion, respondent stated petitioner’s income

tax deficiency was reduced to $8,071 to reflect the concessions

contained in the answer.   On November 22, 2005, the Court ordered

petitioner to respond to the motion.      On November 29, 2005,

petitioner filed his objection which asserted only tax protester

arguments.

                             Discussion

     Rule 34(b)(4) requires a taxpayer’s petition to contain

clear and concise assignments of each and every error the

taxpayer alleges the Commissioner committed in determining the

deficiency or liability.   Rule 34(b)(5) further requires the

petition to contain clear and concise statements of fact on which

the taxpayer bases the assignments of error.      Jarvis v.

Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982).      If an issue is not

addressed by a clear and concise assignment of error, it is

deemed to be conceded.   Rule 34(b)(4); Nis Family Trust v.

Commissioner,    115 T.C. 523, 536-537 (2000).
                                 - 5 -

     In this case, respondent has moved for entry of decision.

The Court will grant the motion.    As a result of the Court’s

ruling of March 23, 2005, it was established that petitioner

received $51,114 as income.   See Swain v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.

358, 362 (2002).   On April 6, 2005, respondent conceded the

remaining issues relating to the cancellation of indebtedness

income and the section 6662(a) penalty.       There are no issues

remaining.   Accordingly, petitioner received $51,114 of taxable

income in 2002, had no cancellation of indebtedness income, and

is not liable for a section 6662(a) penalty.

     Therefore, we shall enter a decision for respondent with

respect to the deficiency adjusted for respondent’s concessions.

Petitioner is liable for a tax deficiency of $8,071 for tax year

2002 with no section 6662(a) penalty.

     In reaching our holding, we have considered all arguments

made and conclude that any arguments not mentioned above are

moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                          Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
