2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-11-2009 

# Il ya Royt burd v . C ommi s sione r of IRS P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1547

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ilya Ro yt bur d v . C ommi s sione r of I RS " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 113. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/113NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N O . 09- 1547

___________ I L YA R OYT BU RD , A ppel l ant

v. COMMI SSI ONER OF I

NTERNAL

REVENUE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es T ax C o u rt

( T ax C our tN o. 4366- 08) Speci al T r i al J udge: H onor abl e Pet erJ . Panuthos

________________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember16, 2009 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R A N D G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber11, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I l y a R oytbur d appea l s fr om a dec i s i on of the U ni t ed St at es T ax C our t , w hi ch s us t ai ned the I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce’ s ( “I R S”) as s es s m entof t ax def i ci enci es and a d d iti o n s to tax e s f

o r th e y e a rs 2 0 0 4 a n d 2 0 0 5 a n d im p o se d a $ 5 ,0 0 0 p e n a ltyp u rsu a n t to 2 6 U .S .C . § 6 6 7 3 . F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm . R o ytb u rd d id n o t f ile inco m e tax return s fo r th e 2 0 0 4 an d 2 0 0 5 tax y ea rs. T h e IR S d eterm ined that R o ytbu rdT he I R S al s o det erm i ned thatR oytbur d w as l i abl e foran addi t i on t o t axes amount i ng 1 to $ 1 , 4 1 0 . 4 6 u n d er § 6 6 5 1 (a)(1), $1 5 0 . 3 1 u n d er § 6 6 5 4 (a), an d $ 9 0 8 . 9 6 u n d er § 6651( a) ( 2) for2004, and $1, 444. 50, $208. 76, and $545. 70, r es pect i vel y , for2005. 2 w as l i abl e fori ncome t ax def i ci enci es of $16, 080. 70 and $17, 362 for2004 and 2005, r es pect i vel y , as w el l as addi t i ons t o t axes . T he I R S se ntR oytbur d not i ces of def i ci ency 1 f o r e a c h y e a r th a t in f

o rm e d h im o f

th e d e f icie n c ies a n d a d d iti o n s. R o ytb u rd f iled a tim e ly p eti ti o n in the U n it ed S tat es T ax C o u rtco n test ing the IR S d eterm ination s o n the th eo ry thathe w as notr equi r ed t o payi ncome t ax bec aus e he i s nota “r es i dentand/ orci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es and i s i n fac tdom i ci l ed i n the s over ei gn R epubl i c of Penns y l vani a, and cl ai m i ng s t at e ci t i zens hi p. ” H e l at erfi l ed an a m ended pe t i t i on i n w hi ch he r epea t ed the l egal ar gum ent s thathe i s notr equi r ed t o fi l e an i ncome t ax r eturn orpayi ncome t ax. T h e IR S C o m m iss io n e r m o v e d to d ism iss th e p e tit io n f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim and t o i m pos e a pe nal tyunder§ 6673. T he Tax C our tor der ed R oytbur d t o fi l e a s econd amended pet i t i on, w hi ch he di d, es s ent i al l yr epea t i ng the cl ai m s m ade i n the or i gi nal and fi r s tamended pet i t i ons . H e al s o fi l ed an obj ect i on t o the mot i on t o di s m i s s . T he Tax C o u rt g ra n ted th e C o m m iss io n e r’s m o tio n to d ism iss a n d im p o se d a $ 5 ,0 0 0 p e n a lty p u rsu a n t to § 6 6 7 3 . A f ter th e T a x C o u rt d e n ied h is m o tio n to v a c a te, R o ytb u rd tim e ly fi l ed thi s pr o s e appe al . R oytbur d al s o r eques t s thatthi s C our ti s s ue a w r i tof err ort o the Ta x Co u r t , a wr i to f

ma n d a mu s o r d e r i n g th e c l e r k t o f i l e d e f a u l ta g a i n s tth e I RS C om m i s s i oner , and a w r i tof pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tthe I R S t o pr ohi bi tthe age ncyfr om engagi ng i n col l ect i ons act i on agai ns thi m . I n the al t ernat i ve, R oytbur d s eeks a w r i tof3

m andamus t o or derthe Tax C our tt o or derhi m t o paythe def i ci ency , fi nd the “not or i ous defa ul t ” aga i ns thi m nul l and voi d, and fi nd thathe i s “nota Sover ei gn M an buta s l ave of h is c re a te d g o v e rn m e n ts s u b je c t to its d ic ta te s .” W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 26 U . S. C . § 7482( a) ( 1) . W e r evi ew the Tax C o u rt ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r a n d h a v e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r i ts le g a l c o n c lu s io n s . S ee P N C B an co rp, Inc . v . C o m m ’r of Intern al R ev en u e, 21 2 F . 3 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 7 (3d C ir . 2000) . W e r evi ew the i m pos i t i on of a pe nal tyunder§ 6673 forabus e of di s cr et i on. See Sauer s v. C om m ’ rof I nt ernal R evenue , 771 F. 2d 64, 70 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . T he t axpay er bear s the bur den of pr oof t o s how thatthe det erm i nat i on i s i nval i d. See H el ver i ng v. T ay lor, 2 9 3 U . S . 5 0 7 , 5 1 5 (19 3 5 ). T h e T ax C o u rtp rop erlyd ism issed R o ytbu rd’s p eti ti o n . R o ytbu rd’s a rgu m en ts are th o se o f a tax p ro tes ter . W e a n d o th e r c o u rts h a v e c o n sis ten tlyre jec ted su c h a rg u m e n ts and w e nee d notaddr es s them agai n her e. See Sauer s , 771 F. 2d at66- 67; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. M undt , 29 F. 3d 233, 237 ( 6th C i r . 1994) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sl oan, 939 F. 2d 499, 5 0 0 -0 1 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); C h a rc z u k v . C o m m ’r o f In ter n a l R e v e n u e , 7 7 1 F .2 d 4 7 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). In lig h t o f

th e f riv o lo u s n a tu re o f

h is c laim s, th e T a x C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n in im p o s in g a p e n a lty o n R o ytb u rd u n d e r § 6 6 7 3 . T o th e e x ten t th a t R o ytb u rd se e k s w rits o f e rro r, m a n d a m u s, a n d p ro h ib iti o n , h is re q u e sts a re d e n ied b e c a u se h e c a n n o t d e m o n stra te a c lea r a n d in d isp u tab le r ig h t to issua n ce o f th e w ri ts. S ee K err v . U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt , 4 2 6 U . S . 2 9 4 , 4 0 3 (19 7 6 );D eM asi v . W eiss, 6 6 9 F . 2 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ).

Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the Tax C our t ’ s deci s i on. T he C om m i s s i oner ’ s m ot i on fors anct i ons i s gr ant ed i n the s um of $4, 000 ( four - thous and d o lla rs ).

4