UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ STEVEN R. RADER, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee.

_____________ ______________ VIVIAN L. RADER, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. No. 15-9000 (Tax Ct. Nos. 11476-11 & 27722-11) (Petition for Review)

No. 15-9001 (Tax Ct. No. 11409-11)

(Petition for Review)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before KELLY , BALDOCK , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted wi thout oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case , res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persua sive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 14, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Steven Rader came to the Internal Revenue Service’s at tention after he purchased materials from a well-known ta x protestor who was in the business of deliberately evading the tax laws and helpi ng others do the same. In the end, the United States Tax Court determined that Mr. Rader was liable for unpaid taxes and penalties of nearly a million dollars. Mr. Rader’s spouse, Vivian, seeks to app eal this result. Bu t the Tax Court did not find any liability on her part . Neither is there any evid ence in this r ecord, as she asserts, suggesting that th e judgment against Mr. Rade r created clouds on titles to properties the Raders sold ma ny years ago. Despite being challenged to do so in this appeal, then, Ms. Rader has not identified a ny personal and direct injury she suffered from the judgment below. And without that she lacks standing to appeal. United
States v. Ramos , 695 F.3d 1035, 1046 ( 10th Cir. 2012). To be sure, Mr. Rader also seeks to overturn the Tax Court’s decision and he has standing to do so. But even construing his pro se complaint liberally and reviewing the Tax Court’ s application of law de novo and its findings of facts for clear error, we can find no fault w ith the Tax Court’s disposition. See Mitchell v.
Comm’r , 775 F.3d 1243, 1246 (10th Cir. 2015). For example, Mr. Rader contends that the substitute return s the Commissioner rendered in place of his own were defective. But Mr. Rader ha s failed to show how the returns were invalid under 26 U.S.C. § 6020, which specifies when and how the IRS may prepare substitute returns. Mr. Rader argues he was entitled to a credit for money withheld and remitted to the IRS from the proceeds of real estate sales. But we can find no flaw in3 the Tax Court’s analysis e xplaining why the money wit hheld may not be credited under 26 U.S.C. § 6211(b)(1). Mr. Rader seem s to take issue with several of the Tax Court’s evidentiary rulings, including in re sponse to his Fifth Amendment objection. But he offers few record citations that might allow this court to identify and consider his complaints in a meaningful way and, beyond that, he offe rs only conclusory arguments that are themselv es insufficient to facilitat e review by this court. See, e.g. , United States ex rel. Boothe v. Sun Healthcare Grp., Inc. , 496 F.3d 1169, 1175 (10th Cir. 2007). Finally, Mr. Rader has forfeited his argument that the Notice of Deficiency was itself defectiv e, for he failed to raise th is argument in the Tax Court in the first instance. See Mitchell , 775 F.3d at 1248 n.3. Beyond his challenge to the merits of the Tax Court’s disposition, Mr. Rader challenges its decision to sanction him under 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1). But here again Mr. Rader fails to offer this court any reasoned ground on which it might hold the Tax Court abused its discre tion when determining that his arguments on the merits were largely frivolous. Ms. Rader’s appeal (15-90 01) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment against Mr. Rader (15-9000) is affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge