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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2011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; JOYCE M. No. 09-73333
BATES,
Tax Ct. No. 1586-08
Petitioners - Appellants,
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. and Joyce M. Bates appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision
upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax
deficiencies for years 2003 and 2004, and imposition of a penalty under 26 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 6662. They also appeal from the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions under 26
U.S.C. § 6673. We 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.
The contention that the Bateses were 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. No other challenges have been raised to the
Tax Court’s determination of income tax deficiencies, and thus we deem them
abandoned. See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008) (issues
not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).
The Bateses conceded they were liable for the accuracy-related penalty
under 26 U.S.C. § 6662 if they were subject to federal income taxes, and thus we
uphold the imposition of this penalty. 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 the Bateses’ frivolous arguments. See Wolf v. Comm’r, 4 F.3d
709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review).
The Bateses’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-73333