NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLOVUS M. SYKES, No. 16-73708
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 24394-15
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted April 19, 2018**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for
tax year 2012, and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo questions of law,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
including whether the Tax Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and for clear error
its factual findings. Meruelo v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). We
review the imposition of penalties under § 6673 for abuse of discretion. Wolf v.
Comm’r, 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The Tax Court had jurisdiction when the Commissioner mailed valid notices
of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212; see also Scar v. Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1363,
1366–70 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing requirements for valid notice of deficiency
such that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tax Court). We reject as without merit
Sykes’s contention that a letter he received from the Social Security
Administration affected the validity of the notice of deficiency.
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency
determination for 2012 because the Commissioner presented “some substantive
evidence” that Sykes failed to report income and Sykes did not submit any relevant
evidence “showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy v.
Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing against Sykes a
penalty under § 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 7443A(b) (authorizing chief judge to assign proceedings to a special trial judge);
id. § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing a penalty not in excess of $25,000 where the
taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless).
2 16-73708
Sykes’s motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 13-74293, 14-70446, 14-73956,
and 16-73708 (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-73708