FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 19, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RONALD E. DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 19-9001
(CIR No. 017419-16 L)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Ronald E. Davis appeals from an adverse judgment by the Tax Court.
Exercising jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), we affirm.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Mr. Davis a notice of deficiency
stating he owed $3,510.79 in unpaid income tax, penalties, and interest for the 2012
tax year and then issued a notice of intent to levy to collect the debt. After denying
Mr. Davis’s request for a face-to-face Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing because
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
he failed to provide a 2012 return, the Appeals Office of the IRS conducted a
correspondence CDP hearing and issued a notice of determination upholding the
notice of intent to levy. Mr. Davis appealed to the Tax Court, which denied the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and conducted a trial. Ultimately, the
Tax Court upheld the notice of determination.
Mr. Davis submitted several filings after the Tax Court served the merits
decision. He moved for reconsideration, which the court denied. He moved for the
recusal of the Tax Court judge, which the Chief Judge of the Tax Court denied. In
addition, he filed a notice objecting to the denial of reconsideration, which the court
ordered stricken from the record. He then filed a motion to vacate, which the court
also denied.
Mr. Davis now appeals to this court. Because he proceeds pro se, we construe
his filings liberally. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836,
840 (10th Cir. 2005). But “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as
the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id.
“Under [Federal] Rule [of Appellate Procedure] 28, which applies equally to pro se
litigants, a brief must contain more than a generalized assertion of error, with
citations to supporting authority.” Id. at 841 (ellipsis and internal quotation marks
omitted). Although Mr. Davis “has listed several issues for appeal,” “his statement in
support of each issue consists of mere conclusory allegations with no citations to the
record.” Id. And although he does cite legal authority, his legal arguments largely
are incoherent.
2
Nevertheless, giving Mr. Davis the benefit of liberal construction, we have
reviewed the Tax Court’s decisions. We conduct such review “in the same manner
and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without
a jury,” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), reviewing legal determinations de novo and factual
findings for clear error, see Petersen v. Comm’r, 924 F.3d 1111, 1114 (10th Cir.
2019). Having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable legal
authority, we conclude that the Tax Court neither erred legally nor clearly erred
factually in the merits decision served on December 3, 2018. Similarly, we see no
reason to disturb the Tax Court’s other decisions, including its denial of the motion to
recuse and its decision to strike the objection to the denial of reconsideration.
The Tax Court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
3