Randall E. Runquist, Petitioner

RDM .

RD WD

:~E

JUDGE

rII L7'a T .C . Memo . 2008-18 1

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T

RANDALL E . RUNQUIST, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 9979-07 . Filed July 30, 2008 .

Randall E . Runquist, pro se .

Margaret Burow and Thomas Mackinson , for respondent .

MEMORANDUM OPINIO N

SWIFT, Judge : This case is before us on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute .

Petitioner and his wife live in Oregon .

Respondent determined a $22,092 deficiency in petitioner and his wife's 2004 joint Federal income taxes, and an additio n

SERVED JUL 3 0 2008

to tax under section 6651 (a)(1)1 and a penalty under section 6662(a) in the respective amounts of $5,504 and $4,418 .

In 2004 petitioner, and his wife earned and received wages from their employment with MetroPCS and Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J of $86,755 and $9,685, respectively .

On their late filed joint 2004 Federal income tax return, petitioner and his wife reported a $60,000 early IRA distribution but reported zero in wages .

On audit, respondent charged petitioner and his wife with the above wages and determined the above joint income tax deficiency .

At the Court's April 28, 2008, trial calendar in San Francisco, California, this case was called and set for trial on May 1, 2008 . On April 30, 2008, petitioner called respondent's counsel and stated that he wanted to withdraw his petition and not proceed with his case .

At the time of trial on May 1, 2008, petitioner appeared and represented to the Court that he was not a taxpayer, that Congress did not intend to tax everyone--only employees of the Government--and that his and his wife's wages were not taxable .

Petitioner offered no credible evidence, and petitioner asked that he be allowed to withdraw his petition .

'All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code .

At the May 1, 2008'„ hearing the Court attempted to explai n to petitioner the taxability of wages, the overwhelming authority therefor, and the risks that the Court would impose penalties if petitioner :continued with tax-protester arguments .

The Court also attempted to explain to petitioner the obvious personal financial and other risks associated with petitioner's assertion of tax-protester arguments . Petitioner disclosed that he had already separated from his wife and that his life could not get much worse, and petitioner acknowledged that his many problems related to his tax-protester status .

The Court gave petitioner 2 weeks to reconsider his tax-protester arguments . A followup conference call occurred on May 15, 2008, at which petitioner requested and was given additional time to consider his arguments in this case . At another conference call on June 17, 2008, however, petitioner again asserted the same ',tax-protester arguments that he was not a taxpayer and that his and his wife's wages were not taxable .

Petitioner's arguments merit no analysis or discus.sion .

The Court has gone out of its way to assist petitioner to abandon his tax-protestelr status and to become tax compliant .

For the reasons stated in respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, respondent's motion will be granted .

On our own motion, we will impose on petitioner a penalt y of $2,000 under section 6673(a)(1) for filing a frivolous lawsuit and for making frivolous arguments herein .

An appropriate order of dismissal and decision will be entered .