Winterroth v. Commissioner , 474 F. App'x 553 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUL 05 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID K. WINTERROTH,                             No. 11-72377
    Petitioner - Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 4804-09L
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted June 26, 2012 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    David K. Winterroth appeals pro se from the tax court’s summary judgment
    in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) in
    Winterroth’s action challenging a federal tax lien to collect penalties assessed
    *
    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).
    against him for filing a frivolous federal income tax return. We have jurisdiction
    under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s grant of summary
    judgment. Miller v. Comm’r, 
    310 F.3d 640
    , 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
    The Tax Court properly concluded that, in light of Winterroth’s 2006 return
    reporting zero income, zero tax due, and requesting a refund for the amount
    withheld by his employer despite having earned wages, the penalty issued against
    Winterroth was appropriate. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 6702
    (a) (civil penalty of $5,000 for
    filing a frivolous tax return); Olson v. United States, 
    760 F.2d 1003
    , 1005 (9th Cir.
    1985) (per curiam) (a form 1040 filed to obtain a tax refund is a tax return).
    The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the record
    supports the Commissioner’s determination that the collection of the penalty
    should proceed, and Winterroth failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact.
    See Hansen v. United States, 
    7 F.3d 137
    , 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (memorandum).
    Winterroth’s contention that he was denied due process due to bias by both
    the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court is not supported by the record.
    Winterroth’s remaining contentions, including that he is not subject to the
    income tax laws, are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      11-72377
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-72377

Citation Numbers: 474 F. App'x 553

Judges: Gould, Hawkins, Schroeder

Filed Date: 7/5/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023