Case Name: David K. WINTERROTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-29
Citations: 175 F. App'x 810
Docket Number: No. 04-16023
Parties: David K. WINTERROTH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 810–811

Head Matter:
David K. WINTERROTH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-16023.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Filed March 29, 2006.
David K. Winterroth, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Daniel G. Bogden, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Charles Bricken, Esq., Janet A. Bradley, Attorney, Richard A. Latterell, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant—Appellee.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David K. Winterroth appeals pro se from the district court's order granting the government's motion for sanctions of $2,000 in Winterroth's action seeking damages and to set aside an Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") determination that the government could collect by levy federal income tax liabilities for tax years 1995- 1998. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Buster v. Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 because Winterroth's complaint and subsequent filings, in addition to presenting unfounded and insulting allegations directed towards government officials, counsel, and the courts, was premised on arguments consistently rejected as frivolous by this court and others. See, e.g., Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.1985) (rejecting as frivolous taxpayer's contention that wages are not income); Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that IRS employees were properly delegated authority to assess frivolous return penalties); Huff v. United States, 10 F.3d 1440, 1446 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that a Form 4340 constitutes proof of a valid tax assessment). Moreover, the proper forum for judicially challenging a collection due process hearing is the United States Tax Court. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1)(A).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.