Court Opinion

ID: 9407918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 20:00:39.064287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.869113
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 10 2023
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHEILA ANN SMITH,                                 No.    22-70051

                 Petitioner-Appellant,            IRS No. 1312-16L

 v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

                 Respondent-Appellee.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                               United States Tax Court

                              Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Sheila Ann Smith appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision sustaining a

notice of federal tax lien to collect unpaid penalties for filing a frivolous tax return

for 2009, 2010, and 2011. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We

review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law de novo and for clear error its

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
factual findings. DJB Holding Corp. v. Comm’r, 803 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir.

2015). We affirm.

      The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s assessment of frivolous

return penalties because Smith submitted purported returns that contained

information indicating that the self-assessment of taxable income was substantially

incorrect, see 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a)(1)(B), and that were premised on frivolous

positions, see id. § 6702(a)(2)(A). See Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408,

409 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that this court has repeatedly rejected, as frivolous,

variations of the “wages are not income” argument); Olson v. United States,

760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Moore v. United States, 36 F.4th

930, 935 (9th Cir. 2022), amended on denial of reh’g en banc, 53 F.4th 507 (9th

Cir. 2022) (recognizing that Sixteenth Amendment exempts from the

apportionment requirement the expansive category of “incomes, from whatever

source derived”); United States v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc., 899 F.3d 954,

962 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing income or property tax from an excise tax).

      We do not consider issues not specifically raised and argued in the opening

brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Smith’s request to withdraw her motion to vacate (Docket Entry No. 30) is

granted. Smith’s motion to vacate (Docket Entry No. 23) is deemed withdrawn.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-70051