Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02947/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02947-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
John J. Sanderson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Peter J. Panuthos, United States Tax Court Judge.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2947

___________

John J. Sanderson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2007

Filed: August 15, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John J. Sanderson appeals following the tax court’s1

 dismissal of his petition

for redetermination, and its denial of his motion for reconsideration. Sanderson filed

the petition after receiving a notice of deficiency from the Internal Revenue Service

for taxes and additions to tax for the years 2001 through 2003. 

Sanderson’s timely motion for reconsideration and timely appeal from the

denial of that motion permit us to review the underlying dismissal order. See Nordvik

v. Comm’r, 67 F.3d 1489, 1492-94 & nn.3-5 (9th Cir. 1995) (where taxpayers filed

Appellate Case: 06-2947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2007 Entry ID: 3341472
-2-

notice of appeal 10 days after tax court denied their motion for reconsideration, but

more than 90 days after entry of underlying order, appeal of underlying order was

nevertheless deemed timely because motion for reconsideration terminated running

of initial 90-day limitations period (citing United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 6-7

(1991) (per curiam); Robert Lewis Stevenson Apartments, Inc. v. Comm’r, 337 F.2d

681, 683 (8th Cir. 1964))). 

Upon de novo review of the tax court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, we

affirm because Sanderson’s legal theories were patently frivolous and none of his

allegations gave rise to a cognizable claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127

S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (complaint must plead enough facts to state claim for relief

that is plausible); May v. Comm’r, 752 F.2d 1301, 1303-04 & n.3 (8th Cir. 1985)

(affirming dismissal for failure to state claim because, even if all of taxpayer’s

allegations were assumed to be true, petition merely contained conclusory assertions

attacking constitutionality of Internal Revenue Code and its applicability to taxpayer,

all of which had long been rejected); Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir.

1984) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of frivolous petition; noting lack of need to

address frivolous arguments with extensive reasoning and citations to authority,

because doing so might suggest arguments have colorable merit); cf. Am. Home

Assurance Co. v. Pope, 487 F.3d 590, 604-05 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court’s

dismissal for failure to state claim is reviewed de novo).

Accordingly, the tax court’s orders dismissing Sanderson’s petition and denying

his motion for reconsideration are affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2007 Entry ID: 3341472