Hattman v. Commissioner IRS

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-1-2006
Hattman v. Commissioner IRS
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5334
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Hattman v. Commissioner IRS" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 635.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/635
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5334
________________
ROGER HATTMAN,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States Tax Court
(Tax Court No. 18752-04)
Special Trial Judge: Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
AUGUST 1, 2006
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: August 1, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Roger Hattman appeals from a decision of the United States Tax Court
which sustained the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) determination of a tax deficiency
for the year 2001 and imposed a $1,500 penalty on Hattman pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§ 6673. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the Tax Court’s decision.
Hattman filed a “Form 1040"1 for the tax year ending in December 2001
and reported no income and no tax liability. Hattman attached a W-2 form to his 1040
which showed wages paid to him by BNP Pariabas Equity Strategies SNC. Hattman
requested a refund in the amount of $1331.87. This figure was the amount of tax
withheld by BNP Paribas. Hattman also attached a two-page statement to his return
which protested the federal income tax. The IRS issued Hattman a refund in the amount
of $1331.87.
In August 2004, Hattman received a notice of deficiency from the IRS
which informed him of his tax deficiency for 2001 and other penalties and additions
which were imposed against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) and § 6662.
Hattman timely filed a petition for a redetermination in the United States Tax Court.
Among his arguments, Hattman stated that he is a “Sovereign man,” that the IRS
jurisdiction over him is “nonexistent” and that the IRS defaulted on his claims.
The Commissioner of the IRS responded with a motion to dismiss the
petition for failure to state a claim. The Commissioner argued that Hattman’s petition did
not comply with Tax Rule 34(b) because it set forth no factual or justiciable claims of
error in determining the tax deficiency. The Tax Court gave Hattman the opportunity to
amend his petition. In the amended petition, Hattman asserted similar arguments to his
original petition. After conducting a hearing, the Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s
1
As noted in the Tax Court, the Commissioner decided that Hattman’s 1040 did not
constitute a valid tax return.
2
motion to dismiss and imposed a $1,500 penalty on Hattman pursuant to § 6673.
Hattman timely filed this pro se appeal.2 Hattman’s appeal also seeks: (1) a writ of error
to the Tax Court; (2) a writ of mandamus ordering the clerk to file default against the
Commissioner; (3) a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner to honor his letter of non-
liability; and (4) a writ of prohibition against the IRS to prohibit the agency from
engaging in any collection action against him.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). The review
of the Tax Court’s factual findings is for clear error and the review of its conclusions of
law is plenary. See PNC Bancorp, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 212 F.3d 822,
827 (3d Cir. 2000). This Court reviews imposing a penalty under § 6673 for abuse of
discretion. See Sauers v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1985). The
Commissioner’s determinations in the notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the
petitioner bears the burden of proof to show that the determination is invalid. See
Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 515 (1935).
We will affirm the Tax Court’s decision because it properly dismissed
Hattman’s petititon. Despite Hattman’s arguments to the contrary, his arguments are
merely those of a tax protester.3 Hattman’s arguments are patently frivolous and do not
2
The appeal was originally filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. The appeal was transferred to this Court because Hattman was a
resident of Pennsylvania when his petition was filed. See 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1).
3
Indeed, this Court previously rejected similar, if not identical, arguments from
Hattman. See Hattman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 149 Fed. Appx. 121 (3d Cir.
3
require any further discussion. See e.g., Sauers, 771 F.2d 64; see also United States v.
Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500-01
(7th Cir. 1991). Also, in light of Hattman’s arguments, the Tax Court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing a § 6673 penalty on Hattman. To the extent Hattman’s appeal
seeks a writ of mandamus, writ of error and writ of prohibition, each is denied because
Hattman fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of the writs.
See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976); DeMasi v. Weiss, 669
F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982).
For these reasons, we will affirm the decision of the Tax Court. The
Commissioner’s motion for sanctions is granted in the sum of $1,000 (one-thousand
dollars).
2005)(per curiam)(not precedential).
4