We the People--A win!

[jkeeb]

T.C. Memo. 2007-115
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

NICOLAS CHARLES KARKABE, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


Docket No. 14477-06. Filed May 3, 2007.

Nicolas Charles Karkabe, pro se.
Shawna A. Early, for respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings (respondent’s motion).
We shall grant respondent’s motion.

Background
The record establishes and/or the parties do not dispute the
following.


- 2 -


Petitioner resided in Hudson, New York, at the time he filed
the petition in this case.

Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency
(notice) for his taxable year 2003. In that notice, respondent
determined a deficiency of $2,550 in, and an accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a)1 of $510 on, petitioner's Federal
income tax (tax) for that year.

The petition that petitioner filed commencing the instant
proceeding stated the following as grounds for his disagreement
with the notice that respondent issued for his taxable year 2003:

Schulz vs. IRS (No. 04-0196-CV) clearly demonstrates
that lacking a federal court order, I have no obligation
to surrender documents or comply with any IRS
correspondence and can not be held in contempt, arrested,
detained, or otherwise punished
I am currently a plaintiff USDC case# 04CV01211 We The
People v U.S. Government (currently under US court of
appeals in D.C. case 055395) and consider This deficiency
notice harassment. Lastly the 1040 form in
question does not display a valid control # assigned by
the Office of Management & Budget in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) making it a bootleg
form and illegal [Reproduced literally.]

On February 6, 2007, the Court issued an Order (Court’s
February 6, 2007 Order) directing petitioner to file a response
to respondent’s motion. In that Order, the Court also found that
the petition contained statements, contentions, and arguments
that are frivolous and groundless.

1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.


- 3


Petitioner filed a response to respondent’s motion (peti


tioner’s response) in which petitioner stated in pertinent part:

1. Petitioner has moved into negotiations for settlement
through the IRS appeals office * * *
2. Petitioner is currently collecting information and
documents to form a settlement and believes that
it will be possible to resolve the case without
the necessity of a trial.
* * * * * * *

4. Petitioner requests the court grant time for the
disputing parties to come to an agreement by staying
the motion for judgment on the pleadings by an
amount of time deemed appropriate by the court.
Respondent filed a reply to petitioner’s response in which

respondent stated in pertinent part:

5. On March 1, 2007, respondent's counsel contacted
appeals office to determine the status of this
case which is currently under appeals jurisdiction.
6. The appeals officer assigned to this case
indicated that he spoke with petitioner regarding the
issues in this case on March 1, 2007. Petitioner does
not contest that he received wage income in the amount
of $34,104.00 from California Food Plan, Inc., however
he now alleges that he is entitled to a Schedule A
deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses.
7. Petitioner further indicated that he would
provide a memorandum outlining his claimed expenses to
respondent’s appeals office during the week of March 5,
2007.
8. On March 8, 2007, respondent’s appeals officer
informed the undersigned that petitioner has not
provided any information and/or documentary evidence to
support his alleged Schedule A deduction for
unreimbursed employee expenses in taxable year 2003.
[Reproduced literally.]

- 4


Discussion

The Court may grant judgment on the pleadings where the
pleadings do not raise a genuine issue of material fact and a
decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 120(a); Nis
Family Trust v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 523, 537 (2000). “A
judgment on the pleadings is a judgment based solely on the
allegations and information contained in the pleadings and not on
any outside matters. See Rule 120(a) and (b)”. Nis Family Trust

v. Commissioner, supra at 537.
Rule 34(b) provides in pertinent part that a petition with
respect to a notice of deficiency is to contain:

(4) Clear and concise assignments of each and
every error which the petitioner alleges to have been
committed by the Commissioner in the determination of
the deficiency * * * Any issue not raised in the assignments
of error shall be deemed to be conceded.
* * *
(5) Clear and concise lettered statements of the
facts on which the petitioner bases the assignments of
error * * *
The petition in the instant case does not contain (1) a
clear and concise statement of the errors allegedly committed by
respondent in determining the deficiency in, and the accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662(a) on, petitioner’s tax for
his taxable year 2003 and (2) a clear and concise statement of
the facts that form the basis of petitioner’s assignment of
alleged error. We find that the petition does not comply with
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure as to the form and


- 5 -


content of a petition. We further find that, pursuant to Rule
34(b)(4), petitioner has conceded the determinations that respondent
made in the notice for his taxable year 2003. We also
conclude that the petition and the answer do not raise any
genuine issues of material fact.

We found in the Court’s February 6, 2007 Order that the
petition contained statements, contentions, and arguments that
are frivolous and groundless. “A petition that makes only
frivolous and groundless arguments makes no justiciable claim,
and it is properly subject to a motion for judgment on the
pleadings”. Nis Family Trust v. Commissioner, supra at 539; cf.
Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213 (2004). We find that the
statements, contentions, and arguments in the petition state no
justiciable basis upon which relief may be granted.

Although respondent does not ask the Court to impose a
penalty on petitioner under section 6673(a)(1), we consider sua
sponte whether the Court should impose a penalty on petitioner
under that section. Section 6673(a)(1) 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 that a taxpayer
instituted or maintained a proceeding in the Court primarily for
delay or that a taxpayer’s position in such a proceeding is
frivolous or groundless.


- 6 -


As discussed above, we found in the Court’s February 6, 2007
Order that the petition contained statements, contentions, and
arguments that are frivolous and groundless. Although we shall
not impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) on petitioner in
the instant case, we caution him that he may be subject to such a
penalty if in the future he institutes or maintains a proceeding
in this Court primarily for delay and/or his position in any such
proceeding is frivolous or groundless. See Abrams v. Commissioner,
82 T.C. 403, 409-413 (1984); White v. Commissioner, 72

T.C. 1126, 1135-1136 (1979).
We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, contentions,
and arguments that are not discussed herein, and, to the
extent we have not found them to be frivolous and groundless, we
find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.

To reflect the foregoing,

An order granting respondent’s
motion and decision for respondent
will be entered.

[The Observer]

We have considered all of petitioner’s statements, contentions, and arguments that are not discussed herein, and, to the extent we have not found them to be frivolous and groundless, we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.

Yes, to be deemed as merely without merit/irrelevant is surely a TP victory.