F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 28 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RODNEY K. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-9021
Appeal from U.S. Tax Court
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (T.C. No. 22254-96)
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Rodney K. Williams seeks review of a decision by the United
States Tax Court dismissing as untimely his petition for redetermination of
deficiency. We affirm.
On January 11, 1996, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(Commissioner) sent duplicate notices of deficiency to petitioner for his 1993
tax year. One of these notices was correctly addressed; the other was not.
The correctly-addressed notice was returned to the Commissioner with the
statement “Refused for cause without dishonor, Rodney Krusell Williams”
written on each page.
On October 15, 1996, petitioner filed a petition in the Tax Court seeking
a redetermination of the deficiencies and additions to tax asserted against him for
1993. Such petitions must be filed within ninety days of the mailing of the notice
of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a). Petitioner claims his petition was timely
with respect to the incorrectly-addressed notice, which he says he did not receive
until the middle of July. He also claims that the notice of deficiency he received
in July was deficient because it was not dated.
Petitioner’s contentions are frivolous. He does not contest the fact that
on January 11, 1996, the Commissioner mailed to him, by certified mail,
a correctly-addressed notice of deficiency for 1993. See Armstrong v.
Commissioner , 15 F.3d 970, 973 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating notice of deficiency
-2-
is valid when mailed to taxpayer’s last known address). The duplicate notice
mailed to an incorrect address did nothing to vitiate the correctly-addressed
notice of deficiency. Moreover, section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code
(26 U.S.C. § 6212) does not require that the notice of deficiency itself be dated.
The Tax Court properly dismissed petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner’s brief in this court contains only a cursory discussion of the
timeliness issue. Petitioner devotes most of his brief to irrelevant and frivolous
“tax protest” arguments, such as that paper money (federal reserve notes) is not
real money, that pertinent sections of the Internal Revenue Code violate the
Interstate Commerce Clause, and that use of the dollar symbol ($) in the notice
of deficiency has no meaning in law. The Commissioner has moved this court
to impose sanctions against petitioner in the amount of $2000 for bringing this
frivolous appeal. Petitioner was served with the motion and has had an
opportunity to oppose the request for sanctions. See Braley v. Campbell ,
832 F.2d 1504, 1515 (10th Cir. 1987) (party against whom sanctions are sought
must have notice and an opportunity to be heard). He has not responded.
Because petitioner’s arguments on appeal are legally frivolous, we impose
sanctions against him in the amount of $1500. See Casper v. Commissioner ,
805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986) (adopting flat fee of $1500 as sanction for
frivolous appeal from a Tax Court decision).
-3-
The judgment of the United States Tax Court is hereby AFFIRMED. The
Commissioner’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1500.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-4-