Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03695/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03695-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Richard E. Walbaum
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr., United States Tax Court Judge.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3695

___________

Richard E. Walbaum, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 1, 2010

Filed: July 23, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Walbaum appeals the tax court’s1

 dismissal of his petition challenging

notices of deficiency for tax years 2003, 2004, and 2006. Walbaum argues that the

tax court erred by refusing to accept his corrected tax returns, and by not shifting the

burden of proof regarding the deficiencies to the IRS Commissioner; he also asserts

several tax-protestor arguments. The Commissioner has moved for sanctions against

Walbaum.

Appellate Case: 09-3695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686388
-2-

After careful de novo review, see Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th

Cir. 2005) (de novo review standard); Campbell v. Comm’r, 164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th

Cir. 1999) (taxpayer bears burden of proving that Commissioner’s determination was

erroneous), we conclude that the dismissal of Walbaum’s petition was proper for the

reasons stated by the tax court. We further conclude that the tax court was not

required to shift the burden of proof regarding the deficiencies to the Commissioner,

see Scherping v. Comm’r, 747 F.2d 478, 480 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (in

deficiency actions Commissioner’s determination is presumed correct, and petitioner

bears burden to prove otherwise); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (describing

circumstances where burden shifts), and that the tax-protestor arguments raised by

Walbaum are frivolous, see United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.

1993) (per curiam) (we have rejected, on numerous occasions, tax-protestor argument

that federal income tax is unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned; wages

are within definition of income under Internal Revenue Code and Sixteenth

Amendment, and are subject to taxation); United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750

(7th Cir. 1985) (argument that category “employee” in 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) does not

include privately employed wage earners is “preposterous” reading of statute);

Denison v. Comm’r, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (rejecting as

frivolous taxpayer’s arguments that wages were not income and that Internal Revenue

Code was unconstitutional).

Regarding the motion for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single

or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912;

Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, we conclude that Walbaum has filed a frivolous

appeal and that sanctions are appropriate. See Gerads, 999 F.2d at 1256-57 (granting

government’s motion for sanctions where appellant brought frivolous appeal based

on tax-protester argument).

Appellate Case: 09-3695 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686388
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal, and we grant the Commissioner’s motion

for sanctions in the amount of $5000.00.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3695 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686388