Bates v. Commissioner , 436 F. App'x 767 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 07 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SAMUEL D. BATES,                                 No. 08-74807
    Petitioner - Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 4010-06
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted May 24, 2011 **
    Before:        PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Samuel D. Bates appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding the
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for
    years 2001 and 2002, and imposition of a penalty under 
    26 U.S.C. § 6662
    . He also
    appeals from the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions under 
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
    . We
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    have jurisdiction under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
    legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. See Comm’r v. Dunkin,
    
    500 F.3d 1065
    , 1068 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
    Bates’s contention that he was not subject to federal income taxes is
    frivolous. See United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 
    885 F.2d 547
    , 548 (9th Cir.
    1989) (order); 
    Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1
    . Bates does not otherwise challenge the Tax
    Court’s determination of income tax deficiencies, and thus has abandoned any such
    challenge. See Cook v. Schriro, 
    538 F.3d 1000
    , 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008) (issues
    not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).
    The Tax Court did not clearly err by finding that Bates was subject to the
    accuracy-related penalty for negligence under 
    26 U.S.C. § 6662
    (b). See Sparkman
    v. Comm’r, 
    509 F.3d 1149
    , 1161 (9th Cir. 2007).
    The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions under 
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
     for Bates’s frivolous arugments. See Wolf v. Comm’r, 
    4 F.3d 709
    ,
    716 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                 08-74807
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-74807

Citation Numbers: 436 F. App'x 767

Judges: Paez, Pregerson, Thomas

Filed Date: 6/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023