FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL D. BATES, No. 08-74807
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 4010-06
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Samuel D. Bates appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for
years 2001 and 2002, and imposition of a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662. He also
appeals from the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. See Comm’r v. Dunkin,
500 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
Bates’s contention that he was not subject to federal income taxes is
frivolous. See United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir.
1989) (order); Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1. Bates does not otherwise challenge the Tax
Court’s determination of income tax deficiencies, and thus has abandoned any such
challenge. See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008) (issues
not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).
The Tax Court did not clearly err by finding that Bates was subject to the
accuracy-related penalty for negligence under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(b). See Sparkman
v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 2007).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions under 26
U.S.C. § 6673 for Bates’s frivolous arugments. See Wolf v. Comm’r, 4 F.3d 709,
716 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-74807