* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral 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 

### JUL 28 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY K. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 97-9021 Appeal from U.S. Tax Court (T.C. No. 22254-96)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , 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 ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Rodney K. Williams seeks review of a dec ision by the United States Tax Court dismissing as untimely his petitio n for redetermination of deficiency. We affirm. On January 11, 1996, the Commissioner of Internal R evenue (Commissioner) sent duplicate notices of deficiencyto petitioner for his 1993 tax year. One of these notices was correctly addre ssed; the other was not. The correctly-addressed notice was returned to the Commissioner with the statement “Refused for cause without dishonor, Rodn ey Krusell Williams” written on each page. On October 15, 1996, petitioner filed a petition in the Tax Court seeking a redetermination of the deficiencies and additions to tax asserted against him for 1993. Such petitions must be filed within ninety d ays of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a). Petitioner claims his petiti on was timely with respect to the incorrectly-addressed notice, w hich he says he did not receive until the middle of July. He also claims that the notice of deficiency he received in July was deficient because it was not dated. Petitioner’s contentions are frivolous. He does no t contest the fact that on January 11, 1996, the Commissioner mailed to him , by certified mail, a correctly-addressed notice of deficiency for 1993. See Armstrong v. Commissioner , 15 F.3d 970, 973 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating notice of deficiency-3-

is valid when mailed to taxpayer’s last known addre ss). The duplicate notice mailed to an incorrect address did nothing to vitiate the correctly-addressed notice of deficiency. Moreover, section 6212 of th e Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 6212) does not require that the notice of deficiency itself be dated. The Tax Court properly dismissed petitioner’s petit ion. Petitioner’s brief in this court contains only a cu rsory discussion of the timeliness issue. Petitioner devotes most of his b rief to irrelevant and frivolous “tax protest” arguments, such as that paper money ( federal reserve notes) is not real money, that pertinent sections of the Internal Revenue Code violate the Interstate Commerce Clause, and that use of the dol lar symbol ($) in the notice of deficiency has no meaning in law. The Commissio ner has moved this court to impose sanctions against petitioner in the amount of $2000 for bringing this frivolous appeal. Petitioner was served with the m otion and has had an opportunity to oppose the request for sanctions. See Braley v. Campbell , 832 F.2d 1504, 1515 (10th Cir. 1987) (party againstwhom sanctions are sought must have notice and an opportunity to be heard). He has not responded. Because petitioner’s arguments on appeal are legall y frivolous, we impose sanctions against him in the amount of $1500. See Casper v. Commissioner , 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986) (adopting flat f ee of $1500 as sanction for frivolous appeal from a Tax Court decision).-4-

The judgment of the United States Tax Court is here by AFFIRMED. The Commissioner’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1500.

Entered for the Court

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge