(I'm going to snip most of the procedural stuff.)
Alan Christopher Reyes v. Commissioner, No. 10-1431 (6th Cir. 12/2/2011)
ALAN CHRISTOPHER REYES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0807n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
OPINION
Before: GIBBONS, STRANCH, and ROTH,* Circuit Judges.
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Alan Christopher Reyes appeals pro se from the Order and Decision of the United States Tax Court granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and authorizing the Commissioner to proceed by levy to collect Reyes's unpaid federal income taxes, interest, and penalties for the tax years 1999 through 2004, as determined by a Notice of Determination dated January 23, 2009. Reyes contends that he was not under any lawful obligation to file an individual federal income tax return for the tax years in question, that the Commissioner denied him a Collections Due Process (CDP) hearing, and that we should overturn the Tax Court's decision as factually and legally erroneous. Because Reyes's arguments do not demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, or that the IRS is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we AFFIRM the decision of the Tax Court.
[big snip]
Because the Commissioner conceded Reyes did not receive the notices of deficiency for tax years 1999 and 2002, the court ruled that § 6330(c)(2)(B) did not bar Reyes from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying liabilities for those years.
Nonetheless, the Tax Court ruled that Reyes's challenge to the existence or amount of the underlying liabilities for tax years 1999 and 2002 consisted "solely of discredited protestor rhetoric[.]" The court found that Reyes, a United States citizen and Tennessee resident, was subject to the federal income tax and was obligated to file a federal income tax return to report his wages or other compensation. The court found that Reyes received an adequate administrative hearing, but even if he did not, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the case to the IRS Office of Appeals, given Reyes's "tax protestor agenda." Reyes was not entitled to a collection alternative, the court explained, due to his failure to comply with his federal tax obligations. Finally, the court warned Reyes that he might face a substantial penalty under § 6673(a)(1) in the future if he continued to advance frivolous arguments. The court allowed the Commissioner to proceed to collect by levy the deficiencies for tax years 1999 through 2004 as determined in the Notice of Determination dated January 23, 2009. Reyes then filed this appeal.
[another big snip]
B. Reyes's remaining arguments are without merit
With regard to tax years 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004, the Tax Court correctly concluded that Reyes had a prior opportunity to challenge those deficiency determinations before the Commissioner and the Tax Court when he pursued the prior petition, No. 20316-07. Because Reyes ultimately stipulated to the deficiencies for those tax years, the Tax Court correctly held that Reyes was barred from again challenging the existence or amount of those underlying liabilities. See Golden, 548 F.3d at 494-95 (observing that, if a claim of liability or non-liability relating to a particular tax year is litigated, a judgment on the merits is res judicata as to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim and the same tax year). With regard to the deficiencies for tax years 1999 and 2002, the Tax Court appropriately ruled that § 6330(c)(2)(B) did not bar Reyes from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying liabilities for those years, but that Reyes's challenges were nothing more than "discredited protestor rhetoric[.]"
On appeal, Reyes asserts for the first time a new argument that his domicile is within the United States, but he is not a resident of the United States as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(1)(A) because he is not an alien individual with green card status. Among other things, he asserts that only alien individuals are residents of the United States for purposes of filing returns and paying taxes under the Tax Code.
We decline to devote substantial time and effort to the task of unwinding Reyes's misconstruction of various Tax Code provisions. His argument is the converse of another well-known tax protestor argument based on the significance of resident status, and it is similarly lacking in merit. See e.g., Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding as frivolous taxpayer's argument that he was not subject to the income tax because he is a "non resident alien" and awarding sanctions of $8,000); Ambort v. United States, 392 F.3d 1138, 1139 (10th Cir. 2004) (noting Ambort conducted tax seminars instructing attendees that, although they were United States residents, they could legally claim to be "nonresident aliens" exempt from most federal income taxes); United States v. Brooks, 174 F.3d 950, 952-53 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming taxpayer's conviction on tax charges where taxpayer claimed he was a "non-resident alien").
IV. CONCLUSION
The Tax Court did not commit any error of fact or law when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. The Tax Court also did not err when it warned Reyes that any future attempts to advance frivolous arguments could result in a substantial penalty against him under § 6673. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
[Footnotes omitted]
