Hattman v. Commissioner IRS ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    8-1-2006
    Hattman v. Commissioner IRS
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-5334
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
    Recommended Citation
    "Hattman v. Commissioner IRS" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 635.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/635
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 05-5334
    ________________
    ROGER HATTMAN,
    Appellant
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States Tax Court
    (Tax Court No. 18752-04)
    Special Trial Judge: Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr.
    _______________________________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    AUGUST 1, 2006
    Before: MCKEE, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: August 1, 2006)
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM
    Roger Hattman appeals from a decision of the United States Tax Court
    which sustained the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) determination of a tax deficiency
    for the year 2001 and imposed a $1,500 penalty on Hattman pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
    § 6673. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the Tax Court’s decision.
    Hattman filed a “Form 1040"1 for the tax year ending in December 2001
    and reported no income and no tax liability. Hattman attached a W-2 form to his 1040
    which showed wages paid to him by BNP Pariabas Equity Strategies SNC. Hattman
    requested a refund in the amount of $1331.87. This figure was the amount of tax
    withheld by BNP Paribas. Hattman also attached a two-page statement to his return
    which protested the federal income tax. The IRS issued Hattman a refund in the amount
    of $1331.87.
    In August 2004, Hattman received a notice of deficiency from the IRS
    which informed him of his tax deficiency for 2001 and other penalties and additions
    which were imposed against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) and § 6662.
    Hattman timely filed a petition for a redetermination in the United States Tax Court.
    Among his arguments, Hattman stated that he is a “Sovereign man,” that the IRS
    jurisdiction over him is “nonexistent” and that the IRS defaulted on his claims.
    The Commissioner of the IRS responded with a motion to dismiss the
    petition for failure to state a claim. The Commissioner argued that Hattman’s petition did
    not comply with Tax Rule 34(b) because it set forth no factual or justiciable claims of
    error in determining the tax deficiency. The Tax Court gave Hattman the opportunity to
    amend his petition. In the amended petition, Hattman asserted similar arguments to his
    original petition. After conducting a hearing, the Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s
    1
    As noted in the Tax Court, the Commissioner decided that Hattman’s 1040 did not
    constitute a valid tax return.
    2
    motion to dismiss and imposed a $1,500 penalty on Hattman pursuant to § 6673.
    Hattman timely filed this pro se appeal.2 Hattman’s appeal also seeks: (1) a writ of error
    to the Tax Court; (2) a writ of mandamus ordering the clerk to file default against the
    Commissioner; (3) a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner to honor his letter of non-
    liability; and (4) a writ of prohibition against the IRS to prohibit the agency from
    engaging in any collection action against him.
    This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). The review
    of the Tax Court’s factual findings is for clear error and the review of its conclusions of
    law is plenary. See PNC Bancorp, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 
    212 F.3d 822
    ,
    827 (3d Cir. 2000). This Court reviews imposing a penalty under § 6673 for abuse of
    discretion. See Sauers v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 
    771 F.2d 64
    (3d Cir. 1985). The
    Commissioner’s determinations in the notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the
    petitioner bears the burden of proof to show that the determination is invalid. See
    Helvering v. Taylor, 
    293 U.S. 507
    , 515 (1935).
    We will affirm the Tax Court’s decision because it properly dismissed
    Hattman’s petititon. Despite Hattman’s arguments to the contrary, his arguments are
    merely those of a tax protester.3 Hattman’s arguments are patently frivolous and do not
    2
    The appeal was originally filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District
    of Columbia Circuit. The appeal was transferred to this Court because Hattman was a
    resident of Pennsylvania when his petition was filed. See 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1).
    3
    Indeed, this Court previously rejected similar, if not identical, arguments from
    Hattman. See Hattman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 149 Fed. Appx. 121 (3d Cir.
    3
    require any further discussion. See e.g., Sauers, 
    771 F.2d 64
    ; see also United States v.
    Mundt, 
    29 F.3d 233
    , 237 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Sloan, 
    939 F.2d 499
    , 500-01
    (7th Cir. 1991). Also, in light of Hattman’s arguments, the Tax Court did not abuse its
    discretion in imposing a § 6673 penalty on Hattman. To the extent Hattman’s appeal
    seeks a writ of mandamus, writ of error and writ of prohibition, each is denied because
    Hattman fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of the writs.
    See Kerr v. United States District Court, 
    426 U.S. 394
    , 403 (1976); DeMasi v. Weiss, 
    669 F.2d 114
    , 117 (3d Cir. 1982).
    For these reasons, we will affirm the decision of the Tax Court. The
    Commissioner’s motion for sanctions is granted in the sum of $1,000 (one-thousand
    dollars).
    2005)(per curiam)(not precedential).
    4