Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-09016/USCOURTS-ca10-90-09016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Don H. Eckel
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FIL E D 

lJnited State,.:. w m .. ci Apper,~ls 

"f'.,.....H .. r.;,.,-,,;tFEBO 7 1991 

"'?.OBERT L. HOECKFR 

DON H. ECKEL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

> Clerk 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-9016 

) Appeal from U.S. Tax Court 

) (T.C. No. 2341-88) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Don H. Eckel appeals an order of the United States 

Tax Court upholding the Commissioner's determination of Mr. 

Eckel's deficiencies in income tax and penalties for these 

deficiencies and awarding damages to the Commissioner for Mr. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-9016 Document: 010110099891 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 1 
I 

Eckel's maintenance of a frivolous action. 1 The Commissioner 

argues that the Tax Court correctly upheld the determination of 

the assessments and requests that Mr. Eckel be sanctioned for 

bringing the present appeal. We have reviewed the record and 

relevant law and agree with the Commissioner that the Tax Court's 

determination of deficiencies and penalties was correct. We also 

agree with the Tax Court that $3,000 in sanctions was warranted. 

Thus, for reasons stated in the Tax Court's memorandum of April 2, 

1990, we AFFIRM. 

Under 28 U.S.C. S 1912 (1988), this Court may award damages 

and single or double costs for a frivolous appeal. Stafford v. 

Commissioner, 805 F.2d 895, 896 (1986); Caspar v. Commissioner, 

805 F.2d 902, 906 (1986). Rather than remand to the Tax Court for 

a determination of the actual amount of attorney's fees, we 

frequently awarded damages of $500 and double costs. Id. Because 

the average amount of direct costs associated with defendant a 

frivolous appeal in 1986 exceeded $1,400, however, in Caspar we 

adopted a rule of awarding a flat fee of $1,500 as a sanction for 

a frivolous appeal from a Tax Court. See 805 F.2d at 906. The 

record in this case supports imposing a sanction of $1,500 against 

Mr. Eckel for bringing a frivolous appeal. As we have said 

before: 

[T]he sanction is easily avoided by litigants advancing 

claims on appeal which have a factual basis and are 

1 On appeal Mr. Eckel argues that individual tax returns 

violate the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 u.s.c. SS 3501-20 

(1988). Because this argument was not presented in a timely 

fashion to the court below, we will not consider it. See Dille v. 

Council of Energy Resource Tribes, 801 F.2d 373, 376-77(10th Cir. 

1986); Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d 577, 579 n.2 (10th Cir. 1984). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-9016 Document: 010110099891 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 2 
warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for 

the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. 

Additionally, such claims should not be interposed for 

any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause 

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of 

litigation. 

Id. at 907. 

Thus, the judgment of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED and judgment 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 in the amount of $1,500 is, hereby, awarded 

to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-9016 Document: 010110099891 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 3