UNITED STATES TAX COURT
RICHARD WOS, Petitioner v
.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12651-02. Filed July 29, 2003.
Richard Wos, pro se.
Thomas D. Yang
, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge
: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner’s Federal income tax (tax):
At the time he filed the petition in this case, petitioner’s address was in Morton Grove, Illinois.
During 1996 and 1997, petitioner was engaged in a washing machine repair business from which he had net profit of $30,200.31 and $30,227.02, respectively.
On April 18, 1996, respondent received from petitioner an estimated tax payment for 1996 in the amount of $2,000. On April 17, 1997, respondent received from petitioner a payment of $25,624 with respect to his taxable year 1996 and a document dated April 12, 1997 (petitioner’s document for 1996). Respondent did not receive from petitioner any tax return or other document pertaining to his taxable year 1997. Petitioner’s document for 1996 consisted of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040), for 1996 from which petitioner had stricken much of the preprinted language, including the declaration that appeared above the place for the tax-payer’s signature, and on which petitioner had made certain entries and had written certain language, including the phrase “Without Prejudice” that appeared above his signature on that document. In petitioner’s document for 1996, petitioner showed $9,237 of interest, $1,632 of dividend, $97,284 of capital gain, $-803 with respect to rental real estate, and tax due of $25,624. Petitioner did not include in petitioner’s document for 1996 Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business (Schedule C), or any other schedule showing receipts and expenses with respect to the washing machine repair business that petitioner conducted during 1996.
Respondent did not file petitioner’s document for 1996 as petitioner’s tax return for that year. Nor did respondent file a tax return for petitioner for 1997.
Respondent issued to petitioner a notice for his taxable years 1996 and 1997. In that notice, respondent determined, inter alia, that petitioner had Schedule C net profit subject to tax of $67,703 and $116,306 for 1996 and 1997, respectively. Respondent further determined in the notice that during 1997 petitioner received pension income of $3,852 and that he is liable for that year for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t)(1) on that income (i.e., a 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t)(1) of $385). Respondent also determined in the notice that petitioner is liable for each of the years at issue for additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a). On March 7, 2003, petitioner submitted a document to the Court entitled “Trial Memorandum of Petitioner” that the Court had filed (petitioner’s trial memorandum). Petitioner’s trial memorandum contained various statements, contentions, and arguments with respect to what constitutes income for tax purposes that the Court found in an Order dated March 10, 2003 (March 10, 2003 Order) to be frivolous and groundless. In the Court’s March 10, 2003 Order, the Court reminded petitioner about section 6673(a)(1) and informed him that if he continued to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and arguments, the Court would be inclined to impose a penalty on him under section 6673(a)(1).
Discussion
Respondent concedes that the examination of the years at issue commenced after July 22, 1998. Consequently, respondent has the burden of production under section 7491(c) with respect to the additions to tax determined in the notice under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a). As for whether petitioner’s burden under Rule 142(a) and Welch v. Helvering , 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933), of proving error in respondent’s determinations relating to his net profit for each of the years at issue from his washing machine repair business, his pension income for 1997, and the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t)(1) has shifted to respondent Petitioner’s position that his net profit for each of the years at issue from his washing machine repair business and his pension income for 1997 are not subject to tax is frivolous and groundless. On the record before us, we hold that petitioner’s net profit for each of the years at issue from his washing machine repair business is subject to tax. We further hold on that record that petitioner’s pension income for 1997 is subject to tax and that petitioner is liable for that year for the 10percent additional tax under section 72(t)(1) on such pension income.
We turn now to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) that respondent determined for each of the years at issue. With respect to 1996, petitioner contends that petitioner’s document production with respect to the additions to tax under section 6654(a) for the years at issue. On that record, we further find that petitioner has failed to establish that any of the exceptions in section 6654(e) apply in the instant case. On the record before us, we find that petitioner is liable for each of the years at issue for an addition to tax under section 6654(a). Although respondent does not ask the Court to impose a penalty on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), the Court will sua sponte determine whether to impose such a penalty. Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 whenever it appears to the Court, inter alia, that the taxpayer’s position in a proceeding before the Court is frivolous or groundless, sec. 6673(a)(1)(B). In the Court’s March 10, 2003 Order, at the call of this case from the calendar on March 24, 2003, and at the call of this case on that date for trial, the Court reminded petitioner about section 6673(a)(1) and indicated that, in the event petitioner continued to make statements, contentions, and arguments as to why his net profit for each of the years at issue from his washing machine repair business and his pension income for 1997 are not subject to tax that the Court finds to be frivolous and/or groundless, the Court would be inclined to impose a penalty under that section. Nonetheless, petitioner continued to adhere to those statements, contentions, and arguments at trial and after trial, thereby causing the Court to waste its limited resources in addressing such matters. As a result of petitioner’s position that his net profit for each of the years at issue from his washing machine repair business and his pension income for 1997 are not subject to tax, we shall impose a penalty on petitioner pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of $3,000.
We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, contentions, and arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties, Decision will be entered under Rule 155 .