Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01323/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01323-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Mark B. Hall
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

P I L r-! ·--.,, r.;l) 

U!!ite<l SC:i.Ct:s VJu..-t of Appeals 

·r enth Ci::::uit 

hUG l C 1:ggg 

ROBE.RTL f!OECKER 

Clerk 

MARK B. HALL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

v. No. 88-1323 

(C.I.R. No. 31839-87} 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MCWILLIAMS, and BARRETT, Circuit 

Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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}; Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mark B. Hall (Hall), a~pearing E.£2 se, appeals from an order 

of the United States Tax Court granting the Commissioner of 

Internal Revenue's (IRS} Motion to Dismiss Hall's petition for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 1 
... The IRS assessed Hall for deficiencies in his 1981 and 1982 

federal income tax years totaling some $12,623.00, together with 

additions to tax and penalties. Hall then filed a petition in the 

United States Tax Court for a redetermination of those claimed 

deficiencies. His petition alleged that for the years 1981 and 

1982 he (1) was not a taxpayer; (2) did not have taxable income or 

a taxable year; (3) did not owe any taxes and, therefore, Sections 

6651, 6653(a), 6654 and 6661 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 

(26 U.S.C.) were inapplicable; and (4) assumed the matter was 

closed because the IRS did not respond to his request for a 

meeting in 1985. The Tax Court found that these contentions were 

"utterly lacking in merit." We agree. 

On appeal, Hall poses the "issues involved" as (1) what is a 

"taxpayer," (2) whether income tax is "voluntary" or "compulsory," 

(3) do "wages" constitute taxable income, (4} can any government 

agency (IRS} levy, "deprive me of ..• property, without due 

process of law" or without a judgment against me, and (5) was/is 

this proceeding instituted and maintained primarily for delay. 

Our review of the record is, of course, directed exclusively 

to the Tax Court's Memorandum Sur Order dated December 24, 1987, 

and its Order of Dismissal and Decision dated December 30, 1987, 

copies of which are attached hereto and by reference made a part 

hereof. We must review de novo the sufficiency of a complaint 

{petition} in determining whether a grant of a motion to dismiss 

was proper. Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975 (10th Cir. 

1986}. When a complaint is dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 

12b(6}, 28 u.s.c., it must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 2 
can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. 

Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1984). And all wellpleaded facts, together with all reasonable inferences, must be 

taken as true or indulged in favor of the plaintiff. Mitchell v. 

King, 537 F.2d 385 (10th Cir. 1976). Applying these standards, we 

hold that the Tax Court did not err in finding that Hall's 

petition failed to state a claim. We affirm the order of the Tax 

Court substantially for the reasons set forth in the Tax Court's 

Memorandum Sur Order of December 24, 1987, which is attached 

hereto. 

• The Tax Court properly awarded damages to the United States 

under 26 U.S.C. S 6673 in amount of $4,000 finding that Hall's 

contentions were "spurious and patently frivolous." Those same 

contentions have been advanced by Hall on this appeal. The 

government suggests that sanctions should also be imposed upon 

taxpayer Hall for bringing this frivolous appeal. The suggestion 

was set forth in the IRS (appellee) brief. Hall did not respond 

thereto in his reply brief, although he had the opportunity to do 

so. In Stafford v. C.I.R., 805 F.2d 893, 894-95 (10th Cir. 1986), 

we observed/held: 

Courts have the inherent power to impose a variety of 

sanctions on both litigants and attorneys in order to 

regulate their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and 

deter frivolous filings. See,~, Roadway Express, 

Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 . .. (1980) ..•. 

In addition, Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912 

provide that a court of appeals may award just damages 

and single or double costs if the court "determine[s] 

that an appeal is frivolous" or brought for purposes of 

delay. This court has imposed attorney's fees and double 

costs for the taking of frivolous appeals in other 

contexts. See,~, United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 

F.2d 462, 464 (10th Cir. 1980). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 3 
In light of petitioner-appellant's legally frivolous appeal, 

damages in the amount of $500 and double costs are hereby imposed 

against Hall for the taking of this legally frivolous appeal. · 

The Order of Dismissal and Decision of the Tax Court is 

AFFIRMED and the above-stated damages and costs are imposed on 

petitioner-appellant Hall . 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 4 
/ I ' \ d(J 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 

. '. 

MARK "B" HALL, 

Petitioner, 

• l v. Docket No • 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1 

Respondent. 

MEMORANDUM SUR ORDER 

on November 9, 1987 respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for 

Failure to ftate a Claim upon which Relief can be Granted pursuant 

to Rule 40. On December 7, 1987 petitioner filed a notice of 

objection to said motion. The motion was assigned to the 

undersigned for consideration pursuant to section 7456(d) 

(redesignated as section 7443A by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. 

L. 99-514, section 1556, 100 Stat. 2755). 

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal 

income taxes for 1981 and 1982 and additions to tax as follows: 

Additions to Tax 

Year Deficiencies Sec . 6651 Sec. 6653(a) (1) Sec . 6653(a)_(2) Sec. 6661 Sec . 6654 

1981 $5,739 $ 900 $287 * $235 

1982 6,884 1,634 344 ** $1,634 628 

* 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment of $3,601 attributable to 

negligence. 

** 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment of $6,535 attributable to 

negligence. 

The deficiencies in income tax for the years 1981 and 1982 result 

from respondent's determination that petitioner failed to report 

taxable wage income received by petitioner from Hallaburton Co. in 

1981 and 1982 in the respective amounts of $22,619 and $25,508. 

1 

All rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 

Procedure. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1954, as amended, unless otherwise indicated. 

§m'l_ED [)EC 3 0 1987 

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 5 
. . 

- 2 -

Petitioner was a resident of Greeley, Colorado at the time 

the petition herein was filed. Petitioner failed to raise any 

issues in his petition in the assignments of error within the 

meaning of Rule 34(b). Rule 34(b) requires that the petition 

shall contain "clear and concise assignments of each and every 

error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the 

Commissioner in the determination of deficiency or liability" and 

"clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which 

petitioner bases the assignments of error." The petition filed 

herein alleges no justiciable error with respect to respondent's 

determination and no justiciable facts in support thereof. 

Petitioner has the burden of proof of showing error in 

respondent's determination of deficiencies and additions to tax. 

Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 

T.C. 757 (1972)1 Rule 142(a). Merely denying the respondent's 

determination, without more, does not adequately raise a factual 

issue under our rules. Scherping v. Commissioner, 747 F.2d 478 

(8th Cir. 1984), affg. per curiam an unpublished order of this 

Court. Under such circumstances, any issues not raised in the 

assignments of error shall be deemed conceded. Rule 34(b) (4); see 

Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). 

Petitioner expounds contentions in his petition which are 

utterly lacking in merit and which have been repeatedly rejected. 

Petitioner is clearly subject to the income tax laws and to the 

statutory requirement to file a timely return. Rowlee v. 

Commissioner~ 80 T.C. 1111 (1983); sections 1, 6001, 6011 and 

6012. It is well settled that wages and compensation for services 

or labor are taxable income. Eisner .v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 

(1920); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981); 

section 6l(a) (1). It is not a denial of due process to place the 

burden of proof on petitioner to show error in respondent's 

determination. Rockwell v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 

1975). Moreover, it is clear that respondent's procedural rules 

relative to appeals conferences are directory and not mandatory in 

character. Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 529 (10th Cir. 

1971); Montgomery v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 511, 522 (1975). Here, 

petitioner has failed to properly prosecute his case in compliance 

with the rules of practice of this Court. Respondent's motion to 

dismiss will therefore be granted and decision entered in his 

favor for the determined deficiencies and additions to tax. 

We next consider the question whether damages should be 

awarded to the United states under section 6673, which section 

provides an award for damages to the United States in an amount 

not in excess of $5,000 when it appears to the Tax Court that 

proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained primarily 

for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is 

frivolous or groundless. See Sydnes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 864 

(1980), affd. per curiam 647 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1981). Petitioner 

makes no meaningful effort to address the respondent's 

determination of deficiencies and additiops to tax. The 

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 6 
.t' 

/ 

. /,t' 

/. 

/ 

- 3 -

contentions expounded by him are spurious and p~tently frivolous. 

See Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403 (1984). The inescapable 

inference compelled by this record is that petitioner knowingly 

instituted and maintained this proceeding primarily for delay. 

Accordingly, we award damages to the United States under the 

provisions of section 6673 in the amount of $4,000. 

Dated: Washington, D.C. 

December 24, 1987 

~~-~ 

~es M. Gussis 

Special Trial Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 7 
• 

' 

MARK "B" HALL, 

v. 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 

Petitioner, 

Docket No. 31839-87 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION 

For reasons stated in the Memorandum Sur Order attached and 

served herewith, it is 

~ ; i 

ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State 

a Claim upon which Relief can be Granted filed November 9, 1987 is 

granted. It. is further 

ORDERED AND DECIDED: (1) that there are deficiencies in 

petitioner's Federal· income taxes for 1981 and 1982 and additions to 

tax as follows: 

Additions to Tax 

Year Deficiencies Sec . 6651 Sec. 6653(a)(l) Sec. 6653(a)(2) Sec. 6661 Sec. 6654 

1981 $5,739 $ 900 $287 * $235 

1982 6,884 1 , 634 344 ** $1,634 628 

* so percent of the interest due on the underpayment of $3,601 attributable to 

negligence. 

** 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment of $6,535 attributable to 

negligence . 

(2) that damages are awarded to the United States against petitioner 

in the amount of $4,000 pursuant to section 6673, Internal Revenue 

Code of 1954, as amended. 

Entered: OEC (> o i987 

~/\_-~ 

James M. Gussis 

Special Trial Judge 

~E:lW.ED_ \1t.C '3 0 i987 

Appellate Case: 88-1323 Document: 01019975983 Date Filed: 08/18/1989 Page: 8