Myrna Marin

Opinion

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo. 2026-79

MYRNA MARIN,

Petitioner

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

__________

Docket No. 6381-24. Filed September 2, 2026.

__________

Myrna Marin, pro se.

Christine A. Fukushima and Jeffrey A. Rodgers, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: With respect to petitioner’s federal income tax for 2021 (year in issue), respondent determined a $47,846 deficiency, an $11,041 section 6651(a)(1) 1 addition to tax, and a $9,569 section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty. After concessions, 2 the issues for decision are whether petitioner (1) failed to report $205,281 in taxable income; (2) is liable for a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax; and (3) is liable for a section 6673(a)(1) penalty.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On January 23, 2023, petitioner filed her 2021 Form 1040, U.S.

Individual Income Tax Return, reporting only $15,150 of state

1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue

Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

2 Respondent conceded the accuracy-related penalty.

Served 09/02/26

[*2] unemployment benefits. Petitioner did not report any other income. Relying on third-party information returns, respondent determined that petitioner, on her 2021 Form 1040, failed to report $205,281 in income (i.e., $154,566 of rents; $12 of interest; $107 of dividends; and $50,596 of gambling winnings).

On March 25, 2024, respondent issued a Notice of Deficiency in which he determined a deficiency arising from the unreported income, along with a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty. Petitioner, while residing in California, timely petitioned this Court and asserted a wide variety of contentions that have been routinely discredited as frivolous. Attached to the Petition were signed “rebuttal statements” for each third-party information return contending that “payments deliverd [sic] via this ‘PAYER’ did not result from any federal taxable activity whatsoever, and do not constitute any taxable income under the relevant Income Tax Law.”

Before trial, petitioner stipulated that she had received rents, gambling winnings, interest, and dividends in the amounts respondent determined. At trial petitioner repeated the same meritless contentions raised in her Petition. The Court advised petitioner that there was extensive caselaw rejecting her arguments as frivolous and that she could be penalized under section 6673 if she persisted. After trial, petitioner filed a Simultaneous Opening Brief further delineating her frivolous contentions.

OPINION

I. Unreported Income

The IRS’s determinations in a Notice of Deficiency are generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving those determinations erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In cases involving failure to report income, the Commissioner must establish “some evidentiary foundation” connecting the taxpayer with the income-producing activity, Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 361–62 (9th Cir. 1979), rev’g 67 T.C. 672 (1977), or otherwise demonstrate that the taxpayer received unreported income, Walquist v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 61, 67 (2019). In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court to which an appeal in this case would ordinarily lie, see § 7482(b)(1)(A), the presumption attaches when the Commissioner introduces an evidentiary foundation to show that the taxpayer received the unreported income, Hardy v.

3

[*3] Commissioner, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1997-97. Undisputed third-party information returns suffice to establish this foundation. See, e.g., id. at 1004–05; see also § 6201(d). Once the Commissioner has established such a foundation, the burden of proof shifts to the taxpayer to prove that she is entitled to an exclusion from gross income. See Algarawi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-8, at *4.

Respondent has established through information returns and petitioner’s Wage and Income Transcript that petitioner received $154,566 in rents, $12 in interest, $107 in dividends, and $50,596 in gambling winnings during 2021. We find that these documents, coupled with petitioner’s admission that she received these amounts in 2021, establish an adequate evidentiary foundation to shift the burden of proof to petitioner.

Petitioner does not dispute receipt of the amounts set out in the Notice of Deficiency but instead argues that these payments are not taxable income. Section 1 imposes an income tax on taxable income, and section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions. Gross income includes “income from whatever source derived” and the definition specifically lists interest, rents, and dividends. § 61(a)(4), (5), (7). The interest, rents, dividends, and gambling winnings petitioner received in 2021 are gross income for federal income tax purposes. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955); Campodonico v. United States, 222 F.2d 310, 314 (9th Cir. 1955) (holding that the broad definition of gross income includes gambling winnings). Petitioner did not claim any deductions relating to the amounts at issue.

Petitioner’s assertions that the payments she received in 2021 are not taxable income are frivolous and characteristic of rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1987-225. The Court need not address petitioner’s assertions “with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); accord Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 512 (2011). Consequently, we sustain respondent’s determinations with respect to petitioner’s unreported income for the year in issue.

4

[*4] II. Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for the year in issue. Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failing to file a return by the filing deadline (as extended) unless such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Respondent has the burden of production with respect to this addition to tax. See § 7491(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001).

Petitioner stipulated that she filed her 2021 return on January 23, 2023, after the filing deadline of April 18, 2022. Consequently, respondent has met his burden of production. Petitioner offered no explanation for her late filing and thus has not demonstrated that she had reasonable cause for her failure to file a timely return. She is therefore liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax relating to 2021.

III. Section 6673 Frivolous Position Penalty

We now consider respondent’s request to impose a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1). That section authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay a penalty to the United States in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court that the taxpayer instituted or maintained the proceeding primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless. Respondent contends that a penalty is appropriate because petitioner advanced frivolous arguments throughout this proceeding. We agree. Despite multiple warnings, petitioner continued to advance frivolous arguments. We will therefore impose a penalty of $2,500 against petitioner.

We have considered all arguments made and facts presented in reaching our holdings, and, to the extent not discussed above, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or meritless.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.