Bad Day - TP Loses Doubleheader in Tax Court

[JamesVincent]

Famspear thought himself quite clever
To which i respond: please, never
When trying to ryhme
Your words aren't worth a dime
Limericks are one thing you should sever

[Famspear]

Famspear thought himself quite clever
To which i respond: please, never
When trying to ryhme
Your words aren't worth a dime
Limericks are one thing you should sever

But it’s hard, oh so hard, just to stop
Writing verses that tingle and pop!
So, the problem, I guess,
Is to clean up this mess!
And I’ll try! Oh, now, where is the mop?

[Burnaby49]

It's like a drug isn't it?

[JamesVincent]

Fam has it bad, starts to shiver and shake
When he's not writing limericks his hands start to ache
He really needs some good stuff
Maybe shot into his duff
And maybe then he'll stop the quake

[Judge Roy Bean]

One JamesVincent issued a challenge
A misguided attempt to avenge
A deft swipe at his cortex
That left neurons dead in reflex
Now his writings are making us cringe.

[wserra]

Some deluded members of Quatloos
Suddenly all felt the "rhyme" muse.
They wrote iamb and verse,
Poems lengthy and terse,
But for their troubles deserved only boos.

[JamesVincent]

Observer made the challenge quite clear
Mortal Kombat he wished to appear
To this challenge I rose
And brought some bad prose
And now I shall take my crap and disappear

[Gregg]

Its like John Lennon was a tax attorney, somewhere between Tomorrow Never Knows and I am the Eggman

goo goo ka choo

[Famspear]

Its like John Lennon was a tax attorney, somewhere between Tomorrow Never Knows and I am the Eggman

goo goo ka choo

But, at least there are more rhymes than we would find in Revolution 9.......

[jcolvin2]

CLOVUS M. SYKES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Tax Ct. No. 9793-13

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted April 19, 2018**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination of income tax deficiencies for tax year 2009, and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court's legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Hardy v. Comm'r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). 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 upheld the Commissioner's deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Sykes failed to report income and Sykes did not submit any relevant evidence “showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy, 181 F.3d at 1004–05. Contrary to Sykes's contentions, he failed to raise a “reasonable dispute” under 26 U.S.C. § 6201(d), with respect to any item of income reported on information returns because he admitted receiving the amounts reported.

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. See 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing penalty not to exceed $25,000 where taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless); 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 without merit Sykes's contention that the Tax Court erred in admitting evidence without requiring authenticating witnesses.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curium).

Sykes's motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 36) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

CLOVUS M. SYKES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Tax Ct. No. 24394-15

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted April 19, 2018**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination of income tax deficiencies for tax year 2012, and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo questions of law, including whether the Tax Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and for clear error its factual findings. Meruelo v. Comm'r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). 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 had jurisdiction when the Commissioner mailed valid notices of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212; see also Scar v. Comm'r, 814 F.2d 1363, 1366–70 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing requirements for valid notice of deficiency such that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tax Court). We reject as without merit Sykes's contention that a letter he received from the Social Security Administration affected the validity of the notice of deficiency.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner's deficiency determination for 2012 because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Sykes failed to report income and Sykes did not submit any relevant evidence “showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy v. Comm'r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing against Sykes a penalty under § 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions. See 26 U.S.C. § 7443A(b) (authorizing chief judge to assign proceedings to a special trial judge); id. § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing a penalty not in excess of $25,000 where the taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless).

Sykes's motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 13-74293, 14-70446, 14-73956, and 16-73708 (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

CLOVUS M. SYKES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Tax Ct. No. 18787-12L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted April 19, 2018**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

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.

FOOTNOTES

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

CLOVUS M. SYKES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted April 19, 2018**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination to proceed with a proposed collection action for tax years 2001 through 2006, and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court's legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm'r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). 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 err in concluding that § 6702(a) penalties should be issued against Sykes because Sykes maintained a frivolous position when he filed tax returns reflecting that he earned no taxable income from his payors. 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) (civil penalty of $5,000 for filing a frivolous tax return); see Bradley v. United States, 817 F.2d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining government's burden under § 6702). 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.

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.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting at trial the Commissioner's facts and exhibits under Tax Court Rule 91(f) because Sykes failed to show sufficient cause as to why the Commissioner's proposed stipulation should not be admitted. See Tax Ct. R. 91(a), (f) (setting forth requirements for trial stipulations and circumstances under which a party may move to compel stipulations); Sparkman v. Comm'r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review).

We reject as meritless Sykes's contention that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction.

Sykes's motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[Famspear]

Here's your prior thread on this clown:

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... =51&t=9672

[Moderator note: Merged now]

[.]

So, friv penalties of 25, 15, 25 and 25K upheld on appeal.

90K. Not a record, but close.

Probably be considered a victory since some of it took 10 years to nail down.

[notorial dissent]

Personal best???