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, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 without 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 persuasive 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 Court
2 

Steven Rader came to the Internal Revenue Service’s attention after he 

purchased materials from a well-known tax protestor who was in the business of 

deliberately evading the tax laws and helping 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 appeal this result. But the Tax Court did 

not find any liability on her part. Neither is there any evidence in this record, as she 

asserts, suggesting that the judgment against Mr. Rader created clouds on titles to 

properties the Raders sold many years ago. Despite being challenged to do so in this 

appeal, then, Ms. Rader has not identified any 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 with 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 returns the Commissioner rendered in place of his own were 

defective. But Mr. Rader has 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 in 
3 

the Tax Court’s analysis explaining why the money withheld may not be credited 

under 26 U.S.C. § 6211(b)(1). Mr. Rader seems to take issue with several of the Tax 

Court’s evidentiary rulings, including in response 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 offers only conclusory 

arguments that are themselves insufficient to facilitate 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 defective, for he failed to raise this 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 discretion when determining that his arguments on the merits 

were largely frivolous. 

Ms. Rader’s appeal (15-9001) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The 

judgment against Mr. Rader (15-9000) is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Neil M. Gorsuch 

Circuit Judge