                          T.C. Memo. 1996-328



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               VIVIAN D. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 561-96.                          Filed July 18, 1996.


     Vivian D. Rodriguez, pro se.


     Lynda B. Taylor, for respondent.


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


     NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge:     This case is before the

Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a

Claim And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673,1 filed

pursuant to Rule 40.   This case was assigned pursuant to section


     1
        All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -


7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182 by order of the Chief

Judge.   In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable

year 1989 in the amount of $2,366, additions to tax under

sections 6651(a)(1) in the amount of $1,192, and 6654(a) in the

amount of $159, and a penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount

of $473.

     The adjustments giving rise to the above deficiencies,

additions to tax, and penalty are based upon the failure of

petitioner to file a tax return for 1989 and report wages of

$20,873.   Petitioner, a California resident, alleges in the

petition that she is "an individual, American citizen (Domestic)

not a United States citizen and/or resident living abroad

(National)" and that the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1)

only applies to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms revenue.

Petitioner also alleges that she does not know the meaning of

"wages" and that she has been denied due process.   She alleges

that she has not been engaged in "any other taxable activity

other than employment, all of which was within the jurisdictional

boundaries of the State of California."   Thus she contends that

taxes relating to "EMPLOYMENT" are not subject to the deficiency

procedures of section 6211.   Petitioner makes further allegations

in the petition, which are common in tax protester petitions,
                               - 3 -


regarding the method whereby she was selected for audit, as well

as the audit techniques utilized by respondent.

     Subsequent to the filing of respondent's motion, the Court

noted that it reviewed the petition and agreed with respondent

that the allegations therein were tax protester allegations that

have been repeatedly rejected by this and other Courts.     The

petitioner was ordered to file an objection, if any, to

respondent's motion or, alternatively, an amended petition that

alleged adequate assignments of errors and statements of facts in

support of those assignments of error as to the merits of

respondent's determinations.   Petitioner did not file an

objection, an amended petition, or any other response.     Under

these premises, no useful purpose would be served by affording

the parties further hearing in this matter.

     In her motion to dismiss, respondent contends that the

petitioner fails to allege clear and concise assignments of error

in respondent's deficiency determinations in violation of Rule

34(b)(4).   Further, respondent contends that the petition fails

to allege clear and concise lettered statements of fact on which

petitioner bases the assignments of error, in violation of Rule

34(b)(5).   A judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where

petitioner raises no justiciable issues.   See Abrams v.

Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 408 (1984); Brayton v. Commissioner,
                                - 4 -


T.C. Memo. 1989-664, affd. without published opinion 923 F.2d 861

(9th Cir. 1991).

       Petitioner makes tax protester arguments that have been

heard by this Court on many occasions and rejected.      The short

answer to petitioner's contentions is that she is not exempt from

Federal income tax.    See Abrams v. Commissioner, supra at 406-

407.    Furthermore, this Court generally (as in the case here)

will not look behind a deficiency notice to examine evidence used

or the propriety of the Commissioner's motives, or the

administrative policy or procedures involved in making her

determinations.    Abrams v. Commissioner, supra at 406; Riland v.

Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 201 (1982); Greenberg's Express Inc.

v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974).

       Petitioner has failed to raise any issue with regard to the

amount of her income or deductions, or the correct amount of her

tax liability, including the additions to tax and penalty.

Accordingly, she has not raised any justiciable issues, and

respondent's motion to dismiss will be granted.

       Section 6673 authorizes this Court to impose a penalty in

favor of the United States, in an amount not to exceed $25,000,

whenever it appears that the taxpayer's position in a proceeding

is frivolous, groundless, or instituted or maintained primarily

for delay.    Petitioner has made frivolous arguments.    In the

Court's order for an objection or amended petition, the Court

noted that wages are taxable and section 6651(a)(1) does pertain

to income tax.    Petitioner was advised that the allegations in

the petition were similar to those in other cases in which
                              - 5 -


section 6673 penalties have been awarded.   Nevertheless,

petitioner took no further action and made no response.     In view

of the above, respondent's request for a penalty under section

6673 will be granted, and petitioner is required to pay the

United States a penalty of $1,000.

                                An appropriate order and decision

                         will be entered for respondent.
