Avery v. Commissioner

Ninth Circuit

Avery v. Commissioner

399 F. App'x 195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 2010

Docket07-72506

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 399 F. App'x 195 (Avery v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avery v. Commissioner, 399 F. App'x 195 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The tax court properly upheld the tax determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Nathaniel Caleb Avery (“Avery”) received unreported income, and Avery failed to submit any evidence showing “that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.1999).

The tax court also properly upheld the late-filing addition to tax because Avery did not file a tax return for 2002 or provide any evidence suggesting reasonable cause for his failure to do so. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).

The tax court acted within its discretion when imposed a $5,000 penalty, after finding that Avery had instituted the proceedings primarily for delay and had advanced frivolous arguments. See 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a) (providing for sanctions up to $25,000 where “proceedings ... have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay” or where “the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless”); Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 *196 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).

Avery’s contention that the tax court judge was biased is not supported by the record. See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.1993) (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias).

Avery’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

The tax court properly upheld the tax determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Nathaniel Caleb Avery (“Avery”) received unreported income, and Avery failed to submit any evidence showing “that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.1999).

The tax court also properly upheld the late-filing addition to tax because Avery did not file a tax return for 2002 or provide any evidence suggesting reasonable cause for his failure to do so. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).

The tax court acted within its discretion when imposed a $5,000 penalty, after finding that Avery had instituted the proceedings primarily for delay and had advanced frivolous arguments. See 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a) (providing for sanctions up to $25,000 where “proceedings ... have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay” or where “the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless”); Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 *196 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).

Avery’s contention that the tax court judge was biased is not supported by the record. See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.1993) (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias).

Avery’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 F. App'x 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avery-v-commissioner-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack