Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JOSEPH R. BANISTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM*
Joseph R. Banister appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies and additions for tax years 2003 through 2006, and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court's legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm'r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies, additions, and penalties for tax years 2003 through 2006. See 26 U.S.C. § 6201 (setting forth assessment authority of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)); id. at §§ 7601-7613 (providing the IRS with broad investigatory powers); Grimes v. Comm'r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986) (restating that tax on income is constitutional and defining taxable income); Bradford v. Comm'r, 796 F.2d 303, 307 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming the Tax Court's finding that fraud had been established by clear and convincing evidence based on, inter alia, a failure to file tax returns for four consecutive years).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a penalty against Banister for taking a frivolous position. See 26 U.S.C. § 6673; Grimes, 806 F.2d at 1454 (setting forth standard of review and finding no abuse of discretion in imposition of penalty for frivolous petition); see also Larsen v. Comm'r, 765 F.2d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The right to petition ․ does not include the right to maintain groundless proceedings.”).
We reject as without merit Banister's contentions that the Tax Court did not sufficiently consider his motion for offer of proof and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Respondent's motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000, filed on August 31, 2015, is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; Grimes, 806 F.2d at 1454 (“Sanctions are appropriate when the result of an appeal is obvious and the arguments of error are wholly without merit.”).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-71103
Decided: November 21, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)