* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 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 *

BeforeBALDOCK , EBEL, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause 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 aclaim and sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiency. Lesoon’s petition before the tax court was limited to the fo llowing 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” agai nst 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 cas e 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 circums tances, we see no need to catalog petitioner’s arguments and painstak ingly address them. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circui t has remarked: “We perceive no need to refute these arguments withsomber 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), conclu ding that Lesoon had instituted the proceeding primarily for the purpose of delay and that his petition contained nothing but frivolous arguments. This co urt 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, an d 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 s anctions in the amount of $2000 for pursuing this frivolous appeal. Lesoo n 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 Leso on 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 fo r 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