Reddick v. Commissioner , 530 F. App'x 832 ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 13, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RON A. REDDICK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 12-9014
(T.C. No. 22235-11L)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (Tax Court)
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HOLMES, HOLLOWAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Ron A. Reddick has filed a petition for review of the Tax Court’s decision
sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s proposed levy to collect unpaid
federal income tax liabilities, penalties, and interest from him for the 2006 tax year.
Exercising jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), we deny the petition for review
and affirm the Tax Court.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
For the reasons set forth in the Commissioner’s response brief, Mr. Reddick’s
arguments challenging the Commissioner’s tax assessments based on alleged defects
related to the Form 4340 are without merit, see Aplee. Br. at 12-16, and they deserve
no further comment given this court’s decisions in Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174,
1178-79 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that a Form 4340 is presumptive proof of a valid
assessment); March v. IRS, 335 F.3d 1186, 1187-89 (10th Cir. 2003) (same); Taylor
v. IRS, 69 F.3d 411, 419 (10th Cir. 1995) (same); and Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d
733, 737-38 (10th Cir. 1992) (same). Because Mr. Reddick failed to pay the income
tax liability that he himself reported on his untimely 2006 tax returns, we also agree
with the Commissioner that there was no requirement to issue a notice of deficiency
before attempting to collect the late-filing penalty imposed under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6651(a)(1). See Aplee. Br. at 16-19. Finally, as pointed out by the Commissioner,
Mr. Reddick’s appellate arguments concerning the penalty are so vague and
conclusory that they do not merit consideration, and he waived his apparent challenge
to the assessment of accrued interest by failing to assert that challenge in the Tax
Court.
The petition for review is denied.
Entered for the Court
Jerome A. Holmes
Circuit Judge
-2-