                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-39



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               HARRISON DWIGHT FOOS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 845-00S.                      Filed March 26, 2001.



     Harrison Dwight Foos, pro se.

     Charles J. Graves, for respondent.



     DINAN, Special Trial Judge:     This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.    The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.    Unless otherwise indicated,

subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the years in issue.
                                - 2 -

     For the taxable years 1996 and 1997, respondent determined

deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal income taxes of $14,622 and

$13,122, additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $3,655.50

and $3,280.50, and additions to tax under section 6654 of $685.08

and $702.05.

     The issues for decision are, with respect to taxable years

1996 and 1997:   (1) Whether petitioner received unreported income

in the amounts determined by respondent; (2) whether petitioner

is liable for section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for failure to

file a return; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for section

6654(a) additions to tax for failure to pay estimated Federal

income tax.

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

The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   Petitioner resided in

Inman, Kansas, on the date the petition was filed in this case.

During the years in issue, petitioner was doing business as Foos

Boiler Repair.

     Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for

either of the years 1996 or 1997.   Respondent issued petitioner a

statutory notice of deficiency for these years, calculating

petitioner’s tax liability (using the status of married filing

separate returns) as follows:
                               - 3 -

                                          1996       1997

     Self-employment income             $43,603    $43,603
     Interest income                         28       -0-
     DOI income                           6,343       -0-
     Personal exemption                  (2,550)    (2,650)
     Itemized deductions                 (4,830)      -0-
     Standard deduction                    -0-      (3,450)
     Self-employment tax deduction       (3,081)    (3,081)
     Taxable income                      39,513     34,422

     Income tax                          8,461       6,961
     Self-employment tax                 6,161       6,161
     Total tax                          14,622      13,122

     In his petition, the sole disagreement with the notice of

deficiency which petitioner set forth was in the form of the

following statements:   “For the year 1996, I have no proof that I

owe $18,962.58 ($14,622.00 + $4,340.58 [interest plus additions

to tax])” and “For the year 1997, I have no proof that I owe

$17,104.55 ($13,122.00 + $3,982.55).”

     At trial, petitioner filed several motions to dismiss, all

of which were denied.   In addition, prior to trial petitioner

forwarded a letter dated August 12, 1998, to the Internal Revenue

Service which was titled “Notice of Arbitrary and Capricious

Acts, Abuse of Discretion, Criminal Trespass on Private Rights,

and Acts in excess of Statutory Jurisdiction and Authority

Limitations.”   These motions and the above-mentioned letter

contain a “hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant

platitudes, and legalistic gibberish” of a type often presented

to this Court and which we need not address in detail again here.
                                 - 4 -

Rogers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-20 (quoting Crain v.

Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984)).

     The first issue for decision is whether petitioner received

unreported income in the amounts determined by respondent.     Gross

income generally includes income from whatever source derived,

including interest, gross income derived from business, and

income from discharge of indebtedness (DOI).     See sec. 61(a)(2),

(4), (12).   In addition to the tax imposed on income under

section 1, self-employment income is subject to a self-employment

income tax under section 1401.    Self-employment income is defined

generally as the gross income, less certain allowable deductions,

derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by

such individual.   See sec. 1402(a) and (b).

     As noted above, petitioner made no specific assertions of

error in the petition in this case.      Furthermore, petitioner did

not refute respondent’s calculation of his tax liability for 1996

and 1997--specifically, respondent’s determination that

petitioner had unreported income in the stated amounts.     On the

contrary, petitioner stipulated and the evidence reflects the

fact that he received from various sources payments of

approximately $129,000 in 1996 and $107,000 in 1997.     Petitioner

refused to stipulate that he additionally received approximately

$32,000 in 1996 and $17,000 in 1997, not because he denied
                               - 5 -

receiving income but because he could not recall the exact

amounts he received from the additional sources.1

     Because petitioner did not raise any of the items of

unreported income as an issue in this case, and because he

offered no evidence or arguments refuting respondent’s

determinations, we uphold respondent in this regard.

     The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is

liable for the section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for failure to

file a return for 1996 and 1997.   Paragraph (1) of section

6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to timely file a

return.   A taxpayer may avoid the addition to tax if he

establishes that the failure to timely file is due to reasonable

cause and not due to willful neglect.    “Reasonable cause”

requires the taxpayer to demonstrate that he exercised ordinary

business care and prudence and was nonetheless unable to file a

return within the prescribed time.     See United States v. Boyle,

469 U.S. 241, 246 (1985).   “Willful neglect” means a conscious,

intentional failure or reckless indifference.    See id. at 245.


     1
      Although petitioner has not presented evidence of any
expenses incurred in his business, he received a favorable
allowance for expenses from respondent. Despite receipts of over
$100,000 in each of the years in issue, respondent determined
that petitioner had only $43,603 of self-employment income in
each year. Respondent states in his trial memorandum that, due
to an inability to establish amounts of expenses, respondent used
the average of petitioner’s self-employment income for taxable
years 1990 through 1995 as the amount of petitioner’s self-
employment income in each of 1996 and 1997.
                               - 6 -

     Petitioner admits that he did not file a Federal income tax

return for taxable years 1996 and 1997, and he does not argue,

and the record does not establish, that he acted with reasonable

cause and not with willful neglect.    We hold that petitioner is

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

     The final issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable

for the section 6654(a) additions to tax for failure to make

estimated Federal income tax payments for 1996 and 1997.    Unless

the taxpayer demonstrates that one of the statutory exceptions

applies, imposition of the section 6654(a) addition to tax is

mandatory where prepayments of tax, either through withholding or

by making estimated quarterly tax payments during the course of

the taxable year, do not equal the percentage of total liability

required under the statute.   See sec. 6654(a); Niedringhaus v.

Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 222 (1992).

     No evidence in the record indicates petitioner made the

required amount of estimated tax payments for taxable years 1995

and 1996, and petitioner does not argue, and the record does not

indicate, that any of the statutory exceptions apply.   We hold

that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section

6654(a).

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.
                            - 7 -

To reflect the foregoing,

                                    Decision will be entered

                            for respondent.
