*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 10 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD LESOON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 97-9014

(United States Tax Court)

(T.C. No. 309-97)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, 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 cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Edward Lesoon, proceeding pro se , appeals an order of the tax court

dismissing Lesoon’s petition for failure to state a claim and sustaining the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiency. Lesoon’s

petition before the tax court was limited to the following standard tax protestor

refrains: (1) “income is corporate profits” and he did not earn any; (2) the federal

income tax is voluntary and, as a sovereign individual, he did not choose to pay it;

(3) the taxes at issue had not been “assessed” against him; and (4) the tax court

was without jurisdiction to determine the amount of any deficiency. In dismissing

Lesoon’s petition, the tax court stated as follows:

The petition and amended petition filed in this case do not

satisfy the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). In short, there is

neither assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support of any

justiciable claim. Rather, there is nothing but tax protestor rhetoric

and legalistic gibberish . . . . Under the circumstances, we see no

need to catalog petitioner’s arguments and painstakingly address

them. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked:

“We 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.”

Tax Ct. Op. at 2 (citation omitted). In addition, the tax court imposed a sanction

of $1000 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1), concluding that Lesoon had

instituted the proceeding primarily for the purpose of delay and that his petition

contained nothing but frivolous arguments. This court exercises jurisdiction

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482.
-3-

This court reviews de novo the dismissal of a tax court petition for failure

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fox v. Commissioner , 969

F.2d 951, 952 (10th Cir. 1992). Upon de novo review of the parties briefs and

contentions, the tax court’s Order of Dismissal, and the entire record on appeal,

this court affirms for substantially those reasons set forth in the tax court’s Order

of Dismissal.

The Commissioner has asked that this court impose sanctions in the amount

of $2000 for pursuing this frivolous appeal. Lesoon has had notice and an

opportunity to respond to the request for sanctions. See Braley v. Campbell , 832

F.2d 1504, 1515 (10th Cir. 1987). Because Lesoon’s arguments on appeal are

legally frivolous, we impose sanctions against Lesoon in the amount of $1500. 

See Caspar v. Commissioner , 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986) (adopting “a

rule awarding a flat fee of $1,500 as a sanction for a frivolous appeal from a Tax

Court decision”).

The judgment of the United States Tax Court is hereby AFFIRMED . The

Commissioner’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1500. 
-4-

Lesoon’s frivolous and malicious Motion to Rebuttal and Dismiss Appellee Brief

For Error of Facts is DENIED .

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge