SYKES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for tax year 2012, and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo questions of law, including whether the Tax Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and for clear error its factual findings. Meruelo v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). We review the imposition of penalties under § 6673 for abuse of discretion. Wolf v. Comm’r, 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The Tax Court had jurisdiction when the Commissioner mailed valid notices of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212; see also Scar v. Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1363, 1366–70 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing requirements for valid notice of deficiency such that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tax Court). We reject as without merit Sykes’s contention that a letter he received from the Social Security Administration affected the validity of the notice of deficiency.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency determination for 2012 because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Sykes failed to report income and Sykes did not submit any relevant evidence “showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing against Sykes a penalty under § 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions. See 26 U.S.C. § 7443A(b) (authorizing chief judge to assign proceedings to a special trial judge); id. § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing a penalty not in excess of $25,000 where the taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless).

Sykes’s motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 13-74293, 14-70446, 14-73956, and 16-73708 (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.