In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and record on appeal.
By notice of deficiency dated October 24, 1983, the Commissioner notified appellant that he owed taxes for the years 1980 and 1981, as well as additions to tax for those same years due to his failure to file a return, I.R.C. § 6651(a), his negligence in failing to pay any tax, I.R.C. § 6653(a), and his underpayment of estimated tax payments, I.R.C. § 6654. On January 26, 1984, appellant filed his petition in Tax Court, alleging that the Commissioner erroneously determined the deficiencies and additions to tax, and that the Commissioner failed to follow Internal Revenue Code procedures.
Following the filing of his answer, the Commissioner filed a request for admissions. Appellant responded by admitting that he had received the amounts of money from employers as alleged by the Commissioner, but that such amounts did not constitute wages or taxable income. The Commissioner then moved for summary judgment affirming the determined deficiencies and additions to tax, as well as for damages pursuant to I.R.C. § 6673. Appellant then filed his own motion for summary judgment, contending that the amounts he received were for an equal exchange of property (his labor) and therefore did not constitute taxable wages. A hearing was held on both motions on November 26, 1984, at which the parties stated that they had nothing to add to their pleadings as filed. The Tax Court issued its memorandum opinion April 1, 1985, in which it denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and awarded damages to the Commissioner of $5,000. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this court. I.R.C. §§ 7482 & 7483.
The Tax Court resolved the motions for summary judgment in accordance with Tax Court Rule 121. The standard set forth in Rule 121 is substantially identical to the summary judgment standard of Fed.R. Civ.P. 56; there must be no genuine issue as to a material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has recently determined in the context of Rule 56 that summary judgment may be granted where the evidence does not present sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
— U.S. -, -,
Appellant's contention that the amounts he received from his employers
Although he objected to the additions to tax as set forth in the notice of deficiency, appellant presented no evidence and set forth no specific argument as to why the additions to tax were improper. The Tax Court thus granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner on that issue. Because we agree that the amounts received by appellant constitute taxable income, and in light of appellant’s failure to offer any evidence or argument that would tend to rebut or excuse his noncompliance with the cited sections, we affirm the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s determination of the additions to tax.
The Tax Court also awarded damages to the Commissioner in the amount of $5,000 pursuant to I.R.C. § 6673. This section allows an award of damages “[whenever it appears to the Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless.” Appellant has not advanced the weary tax protester arguments that income taxes are unconstitutional or that receipt of currency cannot be taxable because Federal Reserve notes are not money. He has been content with a closely-related frivolous argument: that value received for labor is an exchange of property which is not taxable. The fact that appellant’s wages constitute taxable income is as true as, well ..., as true as taxes.
1
See United States v. Lawson,
Appellant’s position is not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A review of the record discloses no effort on the part of appellant to distinguish existing case law, to bring about a reasoned extension or change in the law, or to point out actual errors in the Commissioner’s determination of deficien
Finally, the Commissioner requests that we impose sanctions against appellant for filing a frivolous appeal. This court has the inherent power to impose sanctions to regulate the docket, promote judicial efficiency and to deter frivolous filings.
Van Sickle v. Holloway,
In the past we have often awarded damages of $500 and double costs, rather than remanding to the Tax Court for a determination as to actual attorney fees.
See Stafford v. Commissioner,
Again, the sanction is easily avoided by litigants advancing claims on appeal which have a factual basis and are warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. Additionally, such claims should not be interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. “An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often— frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority.”
Crain v. Commissioner,
A sanction of $1,500 is hereby imposed against appellant for bringing a frivolous appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. "It was as true,” said Mr. Barkis, "as turnips is. It was as true,” said Mr. Barkis, nodding his nightcap, which was his only means of emphasis, "as taxes is. And nothing’s truer than them." C. Dickens, David Copperfield, ch. 21 at 296 (Macmillan ed. 1962).
. “In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” B. Franklin, Letter to M. Leroy (quoted in H.L. Mencken, A Dictionary of New Quotations, 1178 (1966)).
. Although appellant appears pro-se, he is still required to have an awareness of and comply with relevant procedural and substantive rules of law.
Faretta v. California,
