Rader (Steven) v. CIR , 616 F. App'x 391 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         October 14, 2015
    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    STEVEN R. RADER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                                          No. 15-9000
    (Tax Ct. Nos. 11476-11 & 27722-11)
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL                                (Petition for Review)
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    ___________________________
    VIVIAN L. RADER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                                         No. 15-9001
    (Tax Ct. No. 11409-11)
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL                               (Petition for Review)
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
    these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
    binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
    collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    Steven Rader came to the Internal Revenue Service’s attention after he
    purchased materials from a well-known tax protestor who was in the business of
    deliberately evading the tax laws and helping others do the same. In the end, the
    United States Tax Court determined that Mr. Rader was liable for unpaid taxes and
    penalties of nearly a million dollars.
    Mr. Rader’s spouse, Vivian, seeks to appeal this result. But the Tax Court did
    not find any liability on her part. Neither is there any evidence in this record, as she
    asserts, suggesting that the judgment against Mr. Rader created clouds on titles to
    properties the Raders sold many years ago. Despite being challenged to do so in this
    appeal, then, Ms. Rader has not identified any personal and direct injury she suffered
    from the judgment below. And without that she lacks standing to appeal. United
    States v. Ramos, 
    695 F.3d 1035
    , 1046 (10th Cir. 2012).
    To be sure, Mr. Rader also seeks to overturn the Tax Court’s decision and he
    has standing to do so. But even construing his pro se complaint liberally and
    reviewing the Tax Court’s application of law de novo and its findings of facts for
    clear error, we can find no fault with the Tax Court’s disposition. See Mitchell v.
    Comm’r, 
    775 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (10th Cir. 2015). For example, Mr. Rader contends
    that the substitute returns the Commissioner rendered in place of his own were
    defective. But Mr. Rader has failed to show how the returns were invalid under
    26 U.S.C. § 6020, which specifies when and how the IRS may prepare substitute
    returns. Mr. Rader argues he was entitled to a credit for money withheld and
    remitted to the IRS from the proceeds of real estate sales. But we can find no flaw in
    2
    the Tax Court’s analysis explaining why the money withheld may not be credited
    under 26 U.S.C. § 6211(b)(1). Mr. Rader seems to take issue with several of the Tax
    Court’s evidentiary rulings, including in response to his Fifth Amendment objection.
    But he offers few record citations that might allow this court to identify and consider
    his complaints in a meaningful way and, beyond that, he offers only conclusory
    arguments that are themselves insufficient to facilitate review by this court. See, e.g.,
    United States ex rel. Boothe v. Sun Healthcare Grp., Inc., 
    496 F.3d 1169
    , 1175
    (10th Cir. 2007). Finally, Mr. Rader has forfeited his argument that the Notice of
    Deficiency was itself defective, for he failed to raise this argument in the Tax Court
    in the first instance. See 
    Mitchell, 775 F.3d at 1248
    n.3.
    Beyond his challenge to the merits of the Tax Court’s disposition, Mr. Rader
    challenges its decision to sanction him under 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1). But here again
    Mr. Rader fails to offer this court any reasoned ground on which it might hold the
    Tax Court abused its discretion when determining that his arguments on the merits
    were largely frivolous.
    Ms. Rader’s appeal (15-9001) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The
    judgment against Mr. Rader (15-9000) is affirmed.
    Entered for the Court
    Neil M. Gorsuch
    Circuit Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-9000, 15-9001

Citation Numbers: 616 F. App'x 391

Judges: Kelly, Baldock, Gorsuch

Filed Date: 10/14/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024