* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

June 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-60014

Summary Calendar

_____________________

JOHN P. TROWBRIDGE; ET AL.,

Petitioners,

JOHN P. TROWBRIDGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States Tax Court

Docket No. 750-01

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John P. Trowbridge, M.D., pro se

, appeals from the decision of

the United States Ta x Court. The Tax Court held that Trowbridge

was liable for 1996 and 1997 deficien cies in income tax and for

additions to tax. It also sanctioned Trowbridge $25,000 for

advancing frivolous positions and instituting and maintaining the

proceeding primarily for delay.

On app eal, Trowbridge argues that the Tax Court erred by

failing to give effect to his purported withdrawal of his petition2

for review of the notices of deficiency. He contends that the Tax

Court lacked jurisdiction because “Article I administrative courts

are prohibited from hearing any issue At Law which has been

enumerated in the Constitution only for the province of Article III

courts”; that he is not a “resident” of Texas or a “taxpayer”

subject to federal tax laws; that he has “denied and rebutted any

presumption of the existence of any contracts or commercial

agreements which create an attachment of an equity relatio nship

that would establish an admiralty or equity jurisdiction”; that he

has “forfeited, waived, rejected, declined, and refused to

voluntarily accept any and all bene fits from the United States”;

and that he “objects to the use of Federal Reserve Notes to

discharge debts.” Trowbridge also argues that the Tax Court denied

him due process by granting the Commissioner’s motion for a

protective order against his discovery requests, which consisted of

480 interrogatories, first and second requests for pr oduction of

documents, and 545 requests for admissions.

Altho ugh the Tax Court held that these very same arguments

were frivolous and imposed sanctions of $25,000 against Trowbridge,

those sanctions did not deter him from pressing the same frivolous

arguments on appeal. See Crain v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue , 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-18 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding that

taxpayer’s arguments that he “is not subject to the jurisdiction,

taxation, nor regulation of the state,” that the “Internal Revenue

Service, Incorporated” lacks auth ority to exercise the judicial3

po wer of the United States, that the Tax Court is

unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and

that jurisdiction over his person has never b een affirmatively

proven were frivolous). We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the

Tax Court, and GRANT the Commissioner’s motion for sanc tions of

$6,000 for pursuing a frivolous appeal, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §

7482(c)(4), 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure. S ee Parker v. Commissioner

, 117 F.3d 785, 787

(5th Cir. 1997) (approving the practice of imposing a lump sum

sanction in lieu of costs because it “saves the government the

additional cost of calculating its expenses, and also saves the

court the time and expense of reviewing the submission of costs”).

AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.