Opinion
7914-22
12-13-2022
JEFFREY A. HARTMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Diana L. Leyden, Special Trial Judge.
Petitioner filed a Petition with the Court for redetermination of a deficiency for tax year 2017 on April 12, 2022. On April 21, 2022, petitioner filed an Amended Petition.
On July 11, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (motion).By order served July 25, 2022, the motion was assigned to the undersigned for purposes of disposing of petitioner's motion. On September 22, 2022, respondent filed an Answer to Amended Petition and on October 31, 2022, respondent filed a Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (response).
On July 11, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Default and Dismissal which the Court, by order served August 11, 2022, recharacterized as Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Upon review of the record and petitioner's motion, the Court concludes that petitioner has not met his burden of proving that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he has raised only frivolous arguments in support of his motion. The Court will deny petitioner's motion.
Petitioner resided in Ohio when the Petition in this case was filed.
Background
Petitioner filed what he purported to be a federal income tax return for 2017 on or about February 8, 2019, that reported zero wage income. Petitioner's employer issued to petitioner a Form W-2 for 2017 that reported wages, tips and other compensation of $64,106, Federal income tax withheld of $8,936, Social Security tax withheld of $4,146, and Medicare tax withheld of $969. 1
On that tax return for 2017 petitioner also reported federal income tax withheld of $14,051.27, which included the amounts of Social Security tax and Medicare tax reported as withheld by his employer.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reduced the amount of withholding reported by petitioner by $5,115, the amount of the withheld Social Security tax and Medicare tax, in accordance with respondent's summary assessment authority. I.R.C. § 6201(a)(3) to reflect a corrected federal income tax withholding of $8,936.After this adjustment, there was a reported refund of $8,936, the total amount of the corrected federal income tax withholding. Respondent froze the refund and issued petitioner a notice of deficiency for 2017 on January 19, 2022. The notice of deficiency proposed that petitioner had not reported $49,656 of his wage income as reflected on the Form W-2. After accounting for a Child Tax Credit of $500, the IRS proposed a deficiency of $7,658.
The Court uses the term "IRS" to refer to administrative actions taken outside of these proceedings. The Court uses the term "respondent" to refer to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is the head of the IRS and is respondent in this case, and to refer to actions taken in connection with this case.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Discussion
Summary judgment serves to "expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials." Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Rule 121(a). The Court may grant summary judgment only if there is not any genuine dispute of any material fact. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Petitioner, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and that petitioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FPL Grp., Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 554, 559 (2000); Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529. In deciding whether to grant summary judgment the factual materials and inferences drawn from them must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See FPL Grp., Inc. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 559; Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 36; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529.
Petitioner asserts four frivolous arguments to support his argument that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law: (1) the federal income tax return he filed was true and correct even though on it petitioner reported zero wages; (2) the compensation he received from his employer is not taxable wage income; (3) the information Form W-2 filed by his employer does not satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Fed.R.Evid. 802, and (4) the IRS was required to file 2 a substitute for return for petitioner under I.R.C. § 6020(b).
As to petitioner's first argument, this Court has held that returns showing zero dollars as wages and requesting a refund of taxes withheld are frivolous and such a return does not constitute a true and correct tax return. See Callahan v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 44 (2008); Blaga v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-170.
Petitioner's second argument, that his wages are not taxable income, is without merit. Gross income includes all income form whatever source derived, including wages. I.R.C. § 61(a)(1). Hendrickson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-10 at *5.
As to petitioner's third argument that the Form W-2 is hearsay this Court has held such argument to be frivolous. Id.
As to petitioner's fourth argument that the IRS is required to file a substitute for return under I.R.C. § 6020(b) this Court has held such an argument to be frivolous. Ashford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-101, at *3; See Stewart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-212 at *2.
Thus, petitioner does not meet his burden of proving that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court will deny petitioner's motion.
Additionally, the Court takes this opportunity to inform petitioner that this Court may impose a penalty of up to $25,000 if a taxpayer institutes or maintains a frivolous or groundless petition or institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for delay. I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1). Although the Court will not impose such a penalty at this time, petitioner is warned that the Court may not be so forgiving if he continues to advance frivolous and groundless arguments.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 11, 2022, is denied with prejudice. 3