NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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. 14-70446
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 18787-12L
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 summary judgment
upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination to proceed with
the proposed collection action for tax year 2008, and imposing a penalty under 26
U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the
*
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).
Tax Court’s legal conclusions de novo. Severo v. Comm’r, 586 F.3d 1213, 1215
(9th Cir. 2009). 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 properly sustained the collection action against Sykes
because he failed to raise any permissible issues or defenses at the collection due
process (“CDP”) hearing. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2) (listing issues that may be
considered at the CDP hearing); § 6330(c)(2)(B) (taxpayer may raise at the CDP
hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability only if
he or she did not receive a notice of deficiency).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing against Sykes a
$25,000 penalty under § 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions despite the Tax
Court’s repeated warnings. § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing penalty not to exceed
$25,000 where taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless); see Wolf, 4 F.3d at
716 (concluding Tax Court was within its discretion in imposing penalties under §
6673 against taxpayer who persisted in litigating frivolous positions following
warning). We reject as unsupported Sykes’s contention that the 21-day safe-harbor
provision set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to the Tax Court’s
imposition of penalties.
We reject as meritless Sykes’s contention that he was not required to pay
taxes, because his argument is based on withholding provisions applicable only to
2 14-70446
foreign citizens. We also reject as meritless Sykes’s challenge to the
Commissioner’s substitute for return.
Sykes’s motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-70446