Darlow Thomas Madge v. CIR , 23 F. App'x 604 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                        United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-1531
    ___________
    Darlow T. Madge,                     *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * Tax Court.
    *
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue,    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 6, 2001
    Filed: November 14, 2001
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued deficiencies, additions to tax,
    and penalties against Darlow T. Madge after he failed to file tax returns for the years
    1987-93. Madge petitioned for review, and the Tax Court1 upheld the amounts and
    sanctioned Madge for pursuing frivolous arguments. Madge appeals, arguing that
    income he received from his business was not “gross income” under the tax code, he
    was denied due process, and the sanction was inappropriate. After careful review of
    the record, we affirm.
    1
    The HONORABLE MARY ANN COHEN, Chief Judge, United States Tax
    Court.
    Madge, who elected not to introduce any evidence, failed to meet his burden
    of proving that the Commissioner’s deficiency determination was incorrect, see
    Mattingly v. United States, 
    924 F.2d 785
    , 787 (8th Cir. 1991), and the Tax Court
    properly rejected Madge’s contention that the income from his business was not
    “gross income” under 
    26 U.S.C. § 61
    (a). Based on the undisputed evidence at trial--
    which showed, among other things, that Madge used false identification for some
    bank accounts and threatened cooperating witnesses--we conclude the Commissioner
    proved fraud by clear and convincing evidence. See Scallen v. Comm’r, 
    877 F.2d 1364
    , 1370 (8th Cir. 1989). Finally, the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by
    sanctioning Madge for insisting upon pursuing frivolous arguments after the Court
    repeatedly warned him not to do so. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
    ; Hammers v. Comm’r, 
    894 F.2d 282
    , 283 (8th Cir. 1990).
    Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Madge’s motions for oral argument and
    to take notice of his recent tax return.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-1531

Citation Numbers: 23 F. App'x 604

Judges: Wollman, Bowman, Loken

Filed Date: 11/14/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024