* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-60580

Summary Calendar

_____________________

CAREY K. PARKER; MARY E. PARKER,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Tax Court

(3456-96)

_________________________________________________________________ May 13, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellants Carey K. Parker and Mary E. Parker appeal the tax

c ourt’s dismissal of their petition challenging tax deficienci e s

found by the Interna l Revenue Service. Finding the Parkers’

arguments to be entirely meritless, we affirm.

The Parkers did not file income tax returns for the years 1991

through 1994. The IRS concluded from the 1099 and W-2 forms

submitted by third-party payors that the Parkers owed in excess of-2-

$80,000 in back taxes and penalties, and sent the Parkers notices

of these deficiencies. The Parkers filed a petition for

redetermina tion in which they argued (1) that the IRS lacked

authority to assess income taxes, determine deficiencies, or assess

tax penalties beca use there were no proper implementing

regulations; (2) that the IRS’ determinations were arbitrary and

w ithout factual foundation; (3) that they are “Texas Stat e

Citizens” residing in “on of the Americ an Republics named the

‘State of Texas’” and therefore were not subject to federal income

tax because they are “foreign” to the United States; and (4) that

their income was part of their “estate,” which is “foreign to the

corporate United States Government” and n ot includable in gross

income. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition for failure

to state a claim. The tax court found that the Parkers’ petition

was based upon “frivolous constitutional argument s ” that were

“totally without merit” and granted the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the Parkers have abandoned most of these arguments,

but they have clarified their claim that the IRS’ determinations

were “arbitrary.” The Parkers now insist that the determinations

are “arbitrary” because they are based upon 1099 and W-2 forms

submitt ed by third-party payors, claiming that “the Commissioner

has some duty to investigate the payers [sic] bald assertion of-3-

payment and determine if the payers [sic] position was supported by

their books, receipts, or other records.”

The Parkers cite our decision in Portillo v. Commissioner

, 932

F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1991), as support for this position. In

Portillo

, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency when it discovered

that the taxpayer had reported subs tantially less income from a

particular payor than that payor had reported in its Form 1099. We

found that the Commissioner “arbitraril y decided to attribute

veracity to [the third-party pa yor] and assume that [the

taxpayer’s] Form 1040 was false.” Id. at 1134. In Portillo , the

Commissioner’s determination was arbitrary because the Commissioner

offered no factual basis for accepting on e sworn statement, the

Form 1099, while rejecting another sworn statement, the taxpayer’s

Form 1040.

Portillo did not hold that the IRS must conduct an independent

investigation in all tax deficiency cases. In this case, the

Commissioner has not a rbitrarily found the third-party for m s

credible: the Parkers never filed a Form 1040 or any other

document in which they swore that they did not receive the payments

in question. The Commissioner has no duty to investigate a thirdparty payment report that is not disputed by the taxpayer.

The Parkers additionally suggest, in their statement of facts,

that the requirement that individuals file income tax returns-4-

violates the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Although this argument was not raised before the tax court and

therefore is not properly raised here, we observe that the Parkers’

position is plainly frivolous.

The decision of the tax court dismissing the Parkers’ petition

for redete rmination for failure to state a claim is therefore

affirmed.

Also before this court is the Commissioner’s motion that

sanctions be assessed against the Parkers for bringing a frivolous

appeal. The Internal Revenue Code specifically authorizes the

Court of Appeals to impose a penalty in cases “where the decision

of the Tax Court is affirmed and it appears that the appeal was

instituted or maintained primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s

position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless.” 26 U.S.C.

§ 7482(c)(4). In past cases, this penalty has been single costs,

double costs or a lump sum sanction.

As we have previously observed, imposing a lump sum sanction

saves the government t he additional cost of calculating its

expenses, and also saves the court the time and expense of

reviewi ng the submission of costs. S telly v. Commissioner

, 804

F.2d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied , 480 U.S. 907, 107

S.Ct. 1352 (1987) (setting lump sum sanction “saves both government

time in preparing and filing of affidavits and judicial time in-5-

considering such affidavits”). S ee also Stoecklin v. Commissioner

,

865 F.2d 1221, 1226 (11th Cir. 1989); Crain v. Commissioner

, 737

F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).

In this case, after the government filed its motion to dismiss

on the ground that the Parkers’ petition cited only frivolous and

unsupporte d arguments, the tax court specifically ordered the

Parkers to file an amended petition alleging each error with

specificity, and with “separate statements of every fact upon which

the petitioner bases the assignment of each error.” Despite this

opportu n ity, the Parkers’ amended petition simply repeats the

meritless constitutional arguments of their original petition. In

its order dismissing the petition, the tax court specifically

stated that the Parke rs had raised “frivolous allegations” that

were “nothing but tax protestor rhetoric and legalistic gibberish.”

Despite this warning that their claims were meritless, the Parkers

filed the present appeal in which they continued to maintain that

the entire Tax Code is an elaborate “fraud” designed to “catch the

naïve.” The Parkers insist that the “IRS lie” is based upon a

“deception” that is “thorough, deep and wide.”

Although some latitude may be afforded to pro se taxpayers who

misunderstand th e nature of the tax laws, p ro se status is not a

license to litter the dockets of the federal courts with ridiculous

allegations that the Internal Revenue Code is the product of an-6-

illegal conspiracy. The Commissioner has requested a sanction of

$2000, citing cases imposing sanctions of that amount and higher.

We agree with the Commissioner that this is a reasonable penalty,

and find that imposing a lump sum sanction in lieu of costs

conserves both government and judicial resources. We therefore

impose a sanction of $2000, which we hope will deter the Parkers

from any further frivolous filings.

AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.