Opinion
No. 14-70446
04-23-2018
CLOVUS M. SYKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Tax Ct. No. 18787-12L MEMORANDUM Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court's summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination to proceed with the proposed collection action for tax year 2008, and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the Tax Court's legal conclusions de novo. Severo v. Comm'r, 586 F.3d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir. 2009). We review the imposition of penalties under § 6673 for abuse of discretion. Wolf v. Comm'r, 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly sustained the collection action against Sykes because he failed to raise any permissible issues or defenses at the collection due process ("CDP") hearing. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2) (listing issues that may be considered at the CDP hearing); § 6330(c)(2)(B) (taxpayer may raise at the CDP hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability only if he or she did not receive a notice of deficiency).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing against Sykes a $25,000 penalty under § 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions despite the Tax Court's repeated warnings. § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing penalty not to exceed $25,000 where taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless); see Wolf, 4 F.3d at 716 (concluding Tax Court was within its discretion in imposing penalties under § 6673 against taxpayer who persisted in litigating frivolous positions following warning). We reject as unsupported Sykes's contention that the 21-day safe-harbor provision set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to the Tax Court's imposition of penalties.
We reject as meritless Sykes's contention that he was not required to pay taxes, because his argument is based on withholding provisions applicable only to foreign citizens. We also reject as meritless Sykes's challenge to the Commissioner's substitute for return.
Sykes's motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.