Sixth Circuit Affirms Tax Court, Imposes Frivolous Appeal Sanctions

STEVEN L. MARVIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES TAX COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18-2118

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

ORDER

Before: GUY, GILMAN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

Steven L. Marvin, a Michigan resident, moves for in forma pauperis status and appeals pro se a Tax Court order denying his motion to vacate its judgment sustaining the determination of a tax-collection proceeding against him. This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Marvin filed a late tax return for 2015, showing taxable income of approximately $56,000. Appellee sent a notice of intent to levy the unpaid taxes of approximately $10,000, including penalties and interest. Marvin asked for a hearing, indicating that he did not believe he owed that amount or that he was able to pay. He was asked to submit a revised return to substantiate his claim that he did not owe the taxes and financial information to support his argument of inability to pay. A telephonic hearing was scheduled. Marvin neither submitted any documentation in support of his arguments nor participated in the hearing. He was given another opportunity to submit documentary evidence, which he also ignored. The appeals officer therefore sustained the proposed levy. Marvin appealed to the Tax Court. Appellee moved for summary judgment and to impose sanctions of $500. Marvin moved to strike the motion. The Tax Court denied that motion and ordered Marvin to respond to the motion for summary judgment, which he failed to do. The Tax Court then granted the motion for summary judgment and imposed $500 in sanctions. Marvin filed an untimely motion to vacate the Tax Court's order, which was denied by marginal notation. Marvin filed a notice of appeal from the denial of the motion to vacate.

In his brief, Marvin argues that he is not a federal contractor, officer, employee, or elected official and therefore is not subject to a jeopardy levy procedure. He also argues that he was notified that the taxes due for the 2015 year were approximately $5,000 rather than the amount claimed by appellee. Appellee has filed a motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and 26 U.S.C. § 7482(c)(4).

Marvin has shown no abuse of discretion by the Tax Court in the denial of his untimely motion to vacate the Tax Court judgment. The arguments raised in the appellate brief are nonsensical. Marvin states that he is not subject to a jeopardy levy procedure because he is not a federal contractor, officer, employee, or elected official. However, he points to nothing in the record that shows that he was subjected to a jeopardy levy procedure. He argues that he was informed that the taxes owed for 2015 were only approximately $5,000, but he does not include any documentation of this allegation.

Marvin argues in his reply brief that, despite indicating in his notice of appeal that he was appealing the denial of his motion to vacate, he also intended to appeal the earlier rulings below. However, he did not exhaust any issues with regard to the earlier decisions, as he did not submit any documentation or participate in the appeal determination and did not respond to the appellee's motion for summary judgment in the Tax Court, despite being ordered to do so. Therefore, there are no other rulings he could appeal.

Appellee moves for sanctions in the amount of $8,000 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and 26 U.S.C. § 7482(c)(4), to compensate for having to respond to a frivolous appeal. We have long sanctioned frivolous tax protestor appeals. See Schoffner v. Comm'r, 812 F.2d 292, 293-94 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). This appeal was obviously filed for purposes of delay and raises no arguable issue. Instead, Marvin raises tax-protestor arguments, including in his reply brief the long-discredited argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly enacted. We have approved a lump sum of $8,000 in cases that raise such arguments. Boggs v. Comm'r, 569 F.3d 235, 238 (6th Cir. 2009). Moreover, Marvin was warned, both in this case and earlier proceedings, that this type of argument would result in the imposition of sanctions.

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion for in forma pauperis status for purposes of this review, GRANT the motion for sanctions of $8,000, and AFFIRM the Tax Court's order.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk