FORECLOSURE PROCEEDS USED TO PAY REAL ESTATE TAXES INCLUDABLE IN CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATION.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Petitioner-Appellant Linda L. Jokinen, a pro se taxpayer, appeals an order of the tax court that upheld a income tax deficiency determination of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for tax year 1996 and imposed a penalty for failure to file timely a 1996 tax return. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

[2] Jokinen challenged in the tax court the attribution of taxable income to her in 1996 from a foreclosure sale of real property. The property was sold for $35,000; the gain on the sale of the property was $21,500; Jokinen received approximately $11,200 of the foreclosure sale proceeds; and approximately $12,350 was given directly to the county treasurer to pay outstanding real estate taxes on the foreclosed property. Jokinen claimed that proceeds of the foreclosure sale that were used to satisfy delinquent real estate taxes should not be included in the calculation of her gain on the sale because these proceeds were not "realized" by her and because she claimed to have owed no delinquent real estate taxes. Jokinen offered no explanation for her failure to file timely a 1996 return.

[3] The tax court rejected Jokinen's claimed errors. The tax court noted that application of the foreclosure sale proceeds to satisfy liens against the property did not alter the taxable nature of the gain; that the taxpayer did not receive personally these proceeds was of no tax consequence.¹ About Jokinen's claim that she owed no taxes, the tax court observed that it had no jurisdiction to resolve Jokinen's claim about real estate taxes owed; Jokinen's remedy, if any, was to seek a refund of real estate taxes in the appropriate forum. Because Jokinen stipulated that her 1996 return was late, and because she offered no explanation or other evidence to counter the imposition of a late-filing penalty under I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1)², the tax court sustained the late-filing penalty imposed.

[4] Jokinen states that she is appealing the tax court decision, but Jokinen offers no intelligible argument to show error in the tax court's rejection of her challenge to the IRS's deficiency determination. Jokinen has abandoned this claim. See Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned). It is only by a very liberal construction of Jokinen's brief that we can distill an argument challenging imposition of the late-filing penalty. See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972) (pro se filings held to less stringent standards).

[5] Jokinen argues that the government sold her property at the foreclosure sale to a known drug dealer and she was afraid to file timely her 1996 return. But Jokinen's claimed fear, raised for the first time on appeal, will not be considered. See Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d. 1521,) 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (arguments not raised in the district court that are raised for the first time on appeal will not be addressed except in very limited circumstances). Because Jokinen proffered no evidence before the tax court bearing on the imposition of the penalty, admitted that she failed to file her 1996 return on time, offered no explanation for this failure when expressly questioned by the tax court, and no miscarriage of justice has been shown, the circumstances support no consideration of this issue on appeal.

[6] AFFIRMED.

² I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1) makes a taxpayer liable for a penalty for failure to file a tax return on the prescribed date unless it is shown that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.