NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREN LEE CARLSON, pro se, No. 12-72030
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 010633-10 L
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Karen Lee Carlson, appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following
a bench trial, concerning her income tax liability for tax years 2001 through 2004.
We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax
Court’s legal conclusions, and review for clear error its factual findings.
*
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).
Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Contrary to Carlson’s contention, the Tax Court correctly concluded that
Carlson had received taxable income, such as compensation for work performed
for private companies, while she resided in Oregon and Washington. See 26
U.S.C. § 61(a) (broadly defining “gross income” as “all income from whatever
source derived, including (but not limited to) . . . compensation for services”); id.
§ 62 (defining “adjusted gross income” as gross income less deductions and
excluding “the performance of services by the taxpayer as an employee” as a
deduction); id. § 63 (defining “taxable income” as gross income less allowable
deductions); United States v. Hanson, 2 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting
the argument that a natural born citizen of a state is not subject to the tax code),
superseded on other grounds by statute; Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453
(9th Cir. 1986) (holding that tax on income is constitutional and defining taxable
income).
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Charles
Allen Harman’s proposed testimony regarding statutes and case law. See Keller v.
Comm’r, 568 F.3d 710, 725 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying abuse of discretion standard
to Tax Court’s evidentiary decision to restrict testimony).
2 12-72030
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Respondent’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000, filed on March
15, 2013, is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren. 913
F.2d 1406, 1417 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting this court’s discretion to award sanctions
for bringing a frivolous appeal, defined as “if the result is obvious or the
appellant’s arguments are wholly without merit”).
Carlson’s requests for relief, set forth in her opening and reply briefs, are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-72030