Banister v. Commissioner ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      NOV 21 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSEPH R. BANISTER,                             No. 15-71103
    Petitioner-Appellant,          Tax Ct. No. 30500-12
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted November 16, 2016**
    Before:       LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Joseph R. Banister appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a
    bench trial, upholding the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and
    additions for tax years 2003 through 2006, and imposing a penalty under 
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
    . We have jurisdiction under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a). We review de novo the
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v.
    Comm’r, 
    541 F.3d 973
    , 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
    The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s determination of
    deficiencies, additions, and penalties for tax years 2003 through 2006. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 6201
     (setting forth assessment authority of the Internal Revenue Service
    (“IRS”)); 
    id.
     at §§ 7601-7613 (providing the IRS with broad investigatory powers);
    Grimes v. Comm’r, 
    806 F.2d 1451
    , 1453 (9th Cir. 1986) (restating that tax on
    income is constitutional and defining taxable income); Bradford v. Comm’r, 
    796 F.2d 303
    , 307 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming the Tax Court’s finding that fraud had
    been established by clear and convincing evidence based on, inter alia, a failure to
    file tax returns for four consecutive years).
    The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a penalty against
    Banister for taking a frivolous position. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 6673
    ; Grimes, 
    806 F.2d at 1454
     (setting forth standard of review and finding no abuse of discretion in
    imposition of penalty for frivolous petition); see also Larsen v. Comm’r, 
    765 F.2d 939
    , 941 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The right to petition . . . does not include the right to
    maintain groundless proceedings.”).
    We reject as without merit Banister’s contentions that the Tax Court did not
    sufficiently consider his motion for offer of proof and motion to dismiss for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    2                                     15-71103
    Respondent’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000, filed on August
    31, 2015, is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; Grimes, 
    806 F.2d at 1454
     (“Sanctions
    are appropriate when the result of an appeal is obvious and the arguments of error
    are wholly without merit.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                  15-71103
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-71103

Judges: Leavy, Berzon, Murguia

Filed Date: 11/21/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024