Fox v. Commissioner
This text of 1996 T.C. Memo. 79 (Fox v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
*78 An order denying petitioner's motions for summary judgment, granting respondent's motions for summary judgment, and imposing a penalty upon petitioner pursuant to
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAWSON,
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
PANUTHOS,
On May 12, 1989, respondent mailed a statutory notice of deficiency to Frederick M. Fox (petitioner) and his former spouse, Michelle B. Fox, determining deficiencies in and additions to their Federal income taxes for the taxable years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. On that same date, respondent mailed a separate statutory notice of deficiency to petitioner determining a deficiency in and additions to his Federal income tax for the taxable year 1986. Respondent's determinations are summarized in the following table:
| Additions to Tax | ||||
| Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | ||
| Year | Deficiency | 6653(a)(1) | 6653(a)(2) | 6653(b)(1) |
| 1982 | $ 775 | $ 39 | 50% of the | -- |
| interest | ||||
| due on | ||||
| $ 775 | ||||
| 1983 | 10,864 | -- | -- | $ 5,432 |
| 1984 | 19,376 | -- | -- | 9,688 |
| 1985 | 25,784 | -- | -- | 12,892 |
| 1986 | 28,196 | -- | -- | -- |
| Additions to Tax | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | 6653(b)(1)(A) | 6653(b)(2) | 6653(b)(1)(B) | 6659(a) | 6661(a) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1982 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1983 | -- | Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI FREDERICK M. FOX, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Fox v. Commissioner Docket Nos. 19361-89, 16560-90. T.C. Memo 1996-79; 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 78; 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2195; February 26, 1996, Filed *78 An order denying petitioner's motions for summary judgment, granting respondent's motions for summary judgment, and imposing a penalty upon petitioner pursuant to Frederick M. Fox, pro se. Alice M. Harbutte and DAWSON, Judge, Panuthos, Chief Special Trial Judge DAWSON, PANUTHOS MEMORANDUM OPINION DAWSON, OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE PANUTHOS, On May 12, 1989, respondent mailed a statutory notice of deficiency to Frederick M. Fox (petitioner) and his former spouse, Michelle B. Fox, determining deficiencies in and additions to their Federal income taxes for the taxable years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. On that same date, respondent mailed a separate statutory notice of deficiency to petitioner determining a deficiency in and additions to his Federal income tax for the taxable year 1986. Respondent's determinations are summarized in the following table:
*80 Respondent further determined that part or all of the underpayments of petitioner's taxes for the taxable years 1982, 1985, and 1986 constitute substantial underpayments attributable to tax-motivated transactions within the meaning of section 6621(c). Petitioner and Michelle B. Fox filed a timely joint petition for redetermination with the Court on August 7, 1989, assigned docket No. 19361-89, disputing respondent's determinations for the taxable years 1982 through 1986. 2 On April 26, 1990, respondent mailed a statutory notice of deficiency to petitioner determining a deficiency in and additions to his Federal income tax for the taxable year 1987 as follows:
Petitioner filed a timely petition*81 for redetermination with the Court on July 23, 1990, assigned docket No. 16560-90, disputing respondent's determinations for the taxable year 1987. At the time that he filed his petitions, petitioner resided at San Juan Capistrano, California. In the answer to the petition in docket No. 16560-90, which respondent filed on September 21, 1990, it is asserted that the statutory notice of deficiency incorrectly identified the additions to tax for negligence and fraud. The correct references are as follows:
The answer further asserts that the only portion of the underpayment due to fraud is that portion relating to unreported W-2 wages of $ 135,618. The remaining portion of the underpayment is due to negligence. In the alternative, respondent has asserted that if the Court does not find that the portion of the underpayment from the*82 unreported wages is attributable to fraud, then it is attributable to negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations. The deficiencies and additions to tax set forth above are based on a number of adjustments, the most substantial of which is respondent's determination that petitioner failed to report the wages that he earned as a pilot for American Airlines during the taxable years 1983 through 1987. Respondent's answers in these cases include specific assertions that petitioner failed to report wage income from American Airlines and that he filed false Forms W-4 with American Airlines claiming to be exempt from income tax withholding with the fraudulent intent to evade tax. Petitioner filed replies to respondent's answers alleging in pertinent part that: (1) He is not a "taxpayer" but rather is a "sovereign citizen and resident of the Republic of the State of California"; (2) his wages from American Airlines do not constitute taxable income; and (3) Form W-4 does not apply to him on the ground that he is not a taxpayer. 3 *83 Subsequent to the filing of petitioner's replies, respondent filed motions for partial summary judgment that petitioner is liable for tax deficiencies attributable to his failure to report the wages that he received from American Airlines for the taxable years 1983 through 1987. Petitioner filed oppositions to respondent's motions again asserting that he is a nonresident alien and is not subject to the Federal income tax. Following a hearing on the matter, we granted respondent's motions for partial summary judgment. As previously indicated, these cases are now before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Respondent seeks judgments in her favor with respect to all remaining issues. 4 The issues remaining in dispute are: (1) Whether petitioner failed to report interest and dividend income on his 1983, 1984, and 1985 tax returns; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to a loss of $ 3,880 reported on Schedule C attached to his 1983 tax return; (3) whether petitioner is entitled to a loss in the amount of $ 2,410 claimed on his 1986 tax return; (4) whether petitioner is liable for additions*84 to tax pursuant to section 6661 (substantial understatement of liability) for the taxable years 1983 through 1987; and (5) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for fraud for the taxable years 1983 through 1987. Respondent asserts that she is entitled to summary judgment with to these issues. *85 Petitioner responded to respondent's motions for summary judgment by filing his own motions for summary judgment. Petitioner's motions are based on the same frivolous arguments set forth in his replies to respondent's answers. A hearing was held on the pending motions in Washington, D.C., on December 6, 1995. Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented argument on the pending motions. Although petitioner did not appear at the hearing, he filed written statements with the Court pursuant to Rule 50(c). 5 Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, *86 admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. * * * [ When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of such party's pleading, but such party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must set*87 forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, then a decision, if appropriate, may be entered against such party. Petitioner's motions for summary judgment are founded upon tax protester type arguments with respect to the deficiencies and additions to tax determined by respondent. All of the arguments raised by petitioner have been uniformly rejected by this and other courts. See We see no need to catalog petitioner's contentions and painstakingly address them. We have dealt with many of them before. E.g., As previously mentioned, the first four issues on which respondent seeks summary judgment are that petitioner (1) *89 failed to report interest and dividend income on his 1983, 1984, and 1985 tax returns, (2) is not entitled to a loss of $ 3,880 reported on Schedule C attached to his 1983 tax return, (3) is not entitled to a loss in the amount of $ 2,410 claimed on his 1986 tax return, and (4) is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6661 (substantial understatement of liability) for the taxable years 1983 through 1987. Although respondent, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that there are no material facts in dispute with respect to these issues, petitioner is not entitled to rest upon a mere denial of the allegations contained in respondent's motions, but instead petitioner must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Respondent also seeks summary judgment that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for fraud for the years 1983 through 1987. The addition to tax in the case of fraud is a civil sanction provided primarily for the protection of the revenue and to reimburse the Government for the heavy expense of investigation and the loss resulting from the taxpayer's fraud. Respondent has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that some part of an underpayment for each year was due to fraud. 6 *92 Fraudulent intent may be inferred from various kinds of circumstantial evidence or "badges of fraud", including understatement of income, inadequate records, or implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior. We previously granted respondent's motions for partial summary judgment that petitioner is liable for income tax deficiencies attributable to his failure to report the wages that he received from American Airlines for the taxable years 1983 through 1987. As a final matter, we raise on our motion the question of whether we should impose a penalty against petitioner under A petition to the Tax Court is frivolous "if *94 it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law." We are also satisfied that, following settlement of the Coram Taxvest Windfarms issues, petitioner maintained these proceedings primarily for purposes of delay. We flatly rejected petitioner's tax protester arguments earlier in these proceedings when we granted respondent's motions for partial summary judgment. Petitioner is no stranger to this Court and is aware that *96 To reflect the foregoing, Footnotes
RelatedRice v. Comm'r 2009 T.C. Memo. 169 (U.S. Tax Court, 2009) Rennie v. Comm'r 2002 T.C. Memo. 296 (U.S. Tax Court, 2002) Anders v. Commissioner 1999 T.C. Memo. 294 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999) Boettner v. Commissioner 1998 T.C. Memo. 359 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998) Helvering v. Mitchell 303 U.S. 391 (Supreme Court, 1938) Bolen Webb and Cornelia Webb v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 394 F.2d 366 (Fifth Circuit, 1968) Chris D. Stoltzfus and Irma H. Stoltzfus v. United States 398 F.2d 1002 (Third Circuit, 1968) Detsel J. Parkinson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 647 F.2d 875 (Ninth Circuit, 1981) Norman E. McCoy and Mary Louise McCoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 696 F.2d 1234 (Ninth Circuit, 1983) Glenn Crain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 737 F.2d 1417 (Fifth Circuit, 1984) John L. Stephenson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 748 F.2d 331 (Sixth Circuit, 1984) Norman E. Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Gary Holder v. Secretary of the Treasury and United States of America 791 F.2d 68 (Seventh Circuit, 1986) Gregory T. Granado v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 792 F.2d 91 (Seventh Circuit, 1986) Robert W. Bradford v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 796 F.2d 303 (Ninth Circuit, 1986) Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 17 F.3d 965 (Seventh Circuit, 1994) Otsuki v. Commissioner 53 T.C. 96 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969) Beaver v. Commissioner 55 T.C. 85 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970) Stone v. Commissioner 56 T.C. 213 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971) McCoy v. Commissioner 76 T.C. 1027 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981) Habersham-Bey v. Commissioner 78 T.C. No. 22 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982) Jacklin v. Commissioner 79 T.C. No. 21 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982) Stephenson v. Commissioner 79 T.C. No. 63 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982) Rowlee v. Commissioner 80 T.C. No. 61 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983) Abrams v. Commissioner 82 T.C. No. 29 (U.S. Tax Court, 1984)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||