Maehr v. Commissioner, 480 F. App'x 921

Maehr received deficiency notices from the Commissioner for 2003–2006 tax years.
Maehr petitioned the Tax Court, asserting frivolous, conspiratorial, and non‑tax arguments about standing, “positive law,” IMF, form validity, and the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and Rule 34 deficiencies requiring specific error assignments.
The Tax Court dismissed the petition, noting lack of specific challenges and failure to cure, and Maehr did not amend.
Maehr appealed, and the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, upholding the dismissal as compliant with Rule 34 requirements.
Maehr’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as he could pay the appellate costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Maehr’s petition complied with Rule 34(b)(4)-(5).	Maehr argued the petition sufficiently raised constitutional objections.	The petition lacked specific error assignments and factual bases.	Petition failed to state a claim and complied with Rule 34; affirmed dismissal.
Whether Maehr's arguments merit relief against notices of deficiency.	Maehr asserted sixteenth amendment and other broad defenses.	Arguments are frivolous and repeatedly rejected by this court.	No genuine challenge; petition frivolous and properly dismissed.
Whether the appeal should proceed in forma pauperis.	Maehr claimed inability to pay.	Maehr can pay appellate costs.	In forma pauperis denied; must pay remaining appellate filing fee.

Wheeler v. Comm’r, 528 F.3d 773 (10th Cir. 2008) (no statutory authority argument lacks merit; patently frivolous)
Lewis v. Comm’r, 523 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2008) (Form 1040 argument rejected under PRA; meritless)
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) (Sixteenth Amendment argument devoid of basis in law)
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1990) (frivolous arguments similar to Maehr’s raised are meritless)
Fox v. Comm’r, 969 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1992) (de novo standard of review for dismissal; liberal construction of pro se pleadings)