Opinion ID: 3063594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Increased Rate of Interest

Text: Finally, the Basses argue, on the merits, that the tax court erred in using a 9 120 percent increased rate of interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6621(c), because their investment in Cal-Neva Partners was not tax-motivated. Former § 6621 of the IRC provided for enhanced interest for underpayments attributable to tax motivated transactions. Specifically, if a taxpayer’s substantial underpayment of income tax was due to a tax motivated transaction, interest would accrue and be assessed on the deficiency at 120 percent of the underpayment rate. 26 U.S.C. § 6621(c)(1) (1987). Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 74 (Oct. 6, 2008). The Basses have abandoned any challenge to the tax court’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the enhanced rate of interest imposed pursuant to § 6621(c) by failing to dispute that finding. We affirm the final decision of the tax court imposing on the Basses tax additions pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6653(a)(1), (a)(2), and 6661.4 AFFIRMED. 4 The Basses did not argue in their initial brief that the tax court’s computation of the tax addition amounts was erroneous, although they address that issue briefly in their reply brief. Nonetheless, we do not consider “issues raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.” Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Accordingly, the Basses have abandoned any challenge to the tax court’s computations by not briefing the issue in their initial brief. See id. 10