Unpublished Disposition

	NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders
shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res
judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court
within the circuit.

                  James B. CANIFF, Petitioner-Appellant,
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
                             No. 94-2937.
              United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
                    Submitted April 6, 1995. [FN*]
                        Decided April 6, 1995.
	Appeal from the United States Tax Court, No. 3117-94;  Robert
N. Armen, Jr., Tax Court Judge.

	Before BAUER, COFFEY and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
	James B. Caniff did not file income tax returns for seven years,
resulting in a deficiency determination for the unreported income.  Caniff
petitioned the Tax Court, claiming that the deficiency was erroneously
based upon "excise taxable activities", that the IRS failed to provide
filed 1099 Forms, and that he was a non-resident alien.  The tax court
held that the petition failed to contain "[c]lear 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 or
liability" and dismissed it accordingly.  Tax Ct.R. 34(b).
	The tax deficiency clearly related to income taxes, rather than
excise taxes, so Caniff's complaints about the calculation of excise taxes
were correctly disregarded.  It was Caniff's burden, not the
Commissioner's, to demonstrate any inaccuracy or irrationality in the
deficiency.  McLaughlin v. Commissioner, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir.1987);  see
also Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 515 (1935).  The failure of Caniff
to comply with Rule 34(b) makes any lack of Form 1099's irrelevant.  See
also Scherping v. Commissioner, 747 F.2d 478 (8th Cir.1984).
	Caniff's claim that he is a non-resident alien is preposterous on
its face. He acknowledges that he lives in Indiana.  The tax power applies
fully to each and every of the fifty United States, not just the District
of Columbia. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir.1991);  In re
Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir.1989).  The tax court was correct to note
that a claim based on this fantasy was no claim at all.
	Caniff claims on appeal that the income tax cannot
constitutionally tax wages.  The argument has no merit whatsoever, and was
long ago singled out as a frivolous one.  Coleman v. Commissioner, 791
F.2d 68 (7th Cir.1986).
	The Commissioner requests damages under Fed.R.App.Proc. 38 and
I.R.C. s 7482(c)(4).  The appellant has fourteen days to show cause why he
should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous and groundless appeal.
See Coleman, 791 F.2d at 72-73.
	The decision of the tax court is

	FN* After preliminary examination of the briefs, the court
notified the parties that it had tentatively concluded that oral argument
would not be helpful to the court in this case.  The notice provided that
any party might file a "Statement as to Need of Oral Argument."  See
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a);  Cir.R. 34(f).  No statement has been filed.
Accordingly, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.