Scott v. Commissioner

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FRANCES M. SCOTT; GALEN L.
AMERSON,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v. No. 17-9001
(Tax No. 26717-14)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (U.S. Tax Court)
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue sent a notice of deficiency to
Appellants Frances M. Scott and Galen L. Amerson (collectively, “the taxpayers”),
advising them of an income tax deficiency of $36,517 for the 2011, 2012, and 2013
tax years. The taxpayers petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of the
deficiency. They did not allege any calculation errors, but instead proffered a series
of typical tax-defier arguments questioning the essence of our country’s tax system.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Despite multiple notices and reminders, the taxpayers did not appear at trial.
Ultimately, the Tax Court dismissed the petition under Tax Court Rule 123(b) for
lack of prosecution, ruled against the taxpayers on the deficiency issue, and imposed
a $6,000 penalty. The taxpayers now appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under
26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), we affirm.
The Tax Court thoroughly and accurately recounted the procedural history of
this case in its orders dated October 21, 2016, November 3, 2016, December 22,
2016, and January 5, 2017. See Aplee. Br., Attach. A at 13-15, 16-21, 23-27 &
28-30. As this history shows, the Tax Court was exceedingly patient with the
taxpayers despite their failure to appear at trial or comply with a show cause order to
explain their absence, their insistence on reiterating arguments rejected by the Tax
Court as frivolous, and repeated missed deadlines. In addition, the Tax Court
carefully detailed the basis for its dismissal.
This court will not reverse a dismissal for failure to prosecute absent an abuse
of discretion. Ducommun v. Comm’r, 732 F.2d 752, 754 (10th Cir. 1983). We have
no difficulty concluding the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion. Nor do we have
anything to add to its well-reasoned orders. We have already denounced similar
tax-defier arguments as “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.”
See Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990); accord Casper
v. Comm’r, 805 F.2d 902, 904-05 (10th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by
Wheeler v. Comm’r, 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008); Charczuk v. Comm’r, 771 F.2d
471, 472-74 (10th Cir. 1985). And the taxpayers have not even attempted to contest
2
the Tax Court’s authority to dismiss their lawsuit or penalize them for their conduct.
Accordingly, we affirm the Tax Court’s decision.
The taxpayers’ request for leave to file a supplement to their brief dated
June 15, 2017, is granted, and the court has considered the new material presented
therein.
Entered for the Court
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
3