United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ___________ 

No. 22-60204

Summary Calendar

___________ 

Michael R. Lowe,

Petitioner—Appellant, 

versus

Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

Respondent—Appellee. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Tax Court No. 10954-20 

______________________________ 

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., Circuit Judge:*

Appellant Michael Lowe appeals the Tax Court’s decision on his tax

deficiencies. Lowe was given ample warning of the frivolous nature of his 

claims, yet here we are. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60204 Document: 00516524957 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
No. 22-60204

2 

In 2017, Lowe was employed by AltairStrickland LLC as a “site 

quality manager.” That year, he received $193,068.81 for his work. Lowe 

claims no tax liability on this amount, because—in his own words—these 

“payments were not the result of any federal taxable activity whatsoever, 

were private, non-reportable, and did not constitute any excise amount of 

gains, profits, or income subject to any relevant income tax law of the United 

States.” Unsurprisingly, the Tax Court found all of that inapposite, correctly 

applying well-established law to a clear record.1

Because the Tax Court entered its decision after a trial on the 

merits, we review its findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of 

law de novo. See Green v. Comm’r, 507 F.3d 857, 866 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Clear 

error exists when [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been made.”). 

As this court has noted time and time again, “[w]e perceive no need 

to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of 

precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable 

merit.” 2 Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see also 

Williams v. Comm’r, 801 F. App’x 328, 329 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 

S. Ct. 1067 (2021). 

The record is clear that Lowe was provided ample opportunity to 

present his case to his fullest ability. The Tax Court was not obligated to 

accept Lowe’s self-assessment—which simply states that his tax liability was 

1 At trial, Lowe affirmed that the source of these funds was his “work at 

AltairStrickland” and that he used this money to pay his mortgage, utilities, and other 

expenses. 2 On appeal, Lowe accuses the Tax Court and government counsel of “extortion,” 

conspiracy and other unlawful acts. Putting aside that these issues were brought here in the 

first instance, Lowe cites only statutes without regard for caselaw or addressing key 

assumptions premised on his misinterpretation of the tax code.

Case: 22-60204 Document: 00516524957 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
No. 22-60204

3 

$0—or his testimony regarding that assessment. See New England Merchants 

Nat. Bank v. Rosenfield, 679 F.2d 467, 473 (5th Cir. 1982) (reasoning that 

“neither [the trial or appellate] court is required to accept, as credible, 

unsupported self-serving testimony that flies in the teeth of unimpeachable 

contradictory evidence and universal experience”). We find no reason to 

depart from, or add to, the Tax Court’s thorough decision that Lowe had 

received unreported taxable income and that he failed to demonstrate that 

the government’s assessment was arbitrary or erroneous. See Toledano v. 

Comm’r, 362 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1966). 

We now turn to Appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s

motion for sanctions against Lowe. The Internal Revenue Code authorizes 

us to impose a penalty in cases “where the decision of the Tax Court is 

affirmed and it appears that the appeal was instituted or maintained primarily 

for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in the appeal is frivolous or 

groundless.” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(c)(4). The Tax Court graciously spared Lowe 

of sanctions but warned him that the further advancement of frivolous 

arguments may prove otherwise. 

Having granted Lowe the courtesy of a response to the possibility of 

sanctions, we have no concern with the imposition of sanctions for his 

frivolous appeal. Appeals are frivolous when the result is obvious or the 

arguments of error are wholly without merit. Buck v. United States, 967 F.2d 

1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1992). This court is no stranger to sanctions in similarly 

baseless tax cases. See Tello v. Comm’r, 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005).

The Commissioner requests a lump-sum sanction of $8,000 and provides 

persuasive reasoning of that calculation. We agree that this amount is fair, 

and conclude that imposing a lump sum sanction, in lieu of costs, conserves 

the same government and judicial resources which Lowe is keen to waste.

Case: 22-60204 Document: 00516524957 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
No. 22-60204

4 

We AFFIRM the decision of the Tax Court, and GRANT the 

Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000 against Lowe.

Case: 22-60204 Document: 00516524957 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/27/2022