United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 8, 2004
_____________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-60014 Clerk
Summary Calendar
_____________________
JOHN P. TROWBRIDGE; ET AL.,
Petitioners,
JOHN P. TROWBRIDGE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States Tax Court
Docket No. 750-01
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John P. Trowbridge, M.D., pro se, appeals from the decision of
the United States Tax Court. The Tax Court held that Trowbridge
was liable for 1996 and 1997 deficiencies in income tax and for
additions to tax. It also sanctioned Trowbridge $25,000 for
advancing frivolous positions and instituting and maintaining the
proceeding primarily for delay.
On appeal, Trowbridge argues that the Tax Court erred by
failing to give effect to his purported withdrawal of his petition
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
for review of the notices of deficiency. He contends that the Tax
Court lacked jurisdiction because “Article I administrative courts
are prohibited from hearing any issue At Law which has been
enumerated in the Constitution only for the province of Article III
courts”; that he is not a “resident” of Texas or a “taxpayer”
subject to federal tax laws; that he has “denied and rebutted any
presumption of the existence of any contracts or commercial
agreements which create an attachment of an equity relationship
that would establish an admiralty or equity jurisdiction”; that he
has “forfeited, waived, rejected, declined, and refused to
voluntarily accept any and all benefits from the United States”;
and that he “objects to the use of Federal Reserve Notes to
discharge debts.” Trowbridge also argues that the Tax Court denied
him due process by granting the Commissioner’s motion for a
protective order against his discovery requests, which consisted of
480 interrogatories, first and second requests for production of
documents, and 545 requests for admissions.
Although the Tax Court held that these very same arguments
were frivolous and imposed sanctions of $25,000 against Trowbridge,
those sanctions did not deter him from pressing the same frivolous
arguments on appeal. See Crain v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-18 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding that
taxpayer’s arguments that he “is not subject to the jurisdiction,
taxation, nor regulation of the state,” that the “Internal Revenue
Service, Incorporated” lacks authority to exercise the judicial
2
power of the United States, that the Tax Court is
unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and
that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively
proven were frivolous). We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the
Tax Court, and GRANT the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions of
$6,000 for pursuing a frivolous appeal, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §
7482(c)(4), 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See Parker v. Commissioner, 117 F.3d 785, 787
(5th Cir. 1997) (approving the practice of imposing a lump sum
sanction in lieu of costs because it “saves the government the
additional cost of calculating its expenses, and also saves the
court the time and expense of reviewing the submission of costs”).
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
3