TP Avoids Further Sanctions On Appeal

[The Observer]

ROBERT B. KEENAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Release Date: JANUARY 09, 2009


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Tax Ct. No. 20073-05L

MEMORANDUM/*/

Appeal from a Decision of
the United States Tax Court

Submitted December 17, 2008/**/

Before: WALLACE, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

Robert Keenan appeals pro se from the Tax Court's summary judgment upholding the Internal Revenue Service's determination to collect by levy Keenan's unpaid federal income taxes for the years 1988 and 1990 through 1994. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)(1). We review the Tax Court's summary judgment de novo, see Johnston v. Comm'r, 461 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because Keenan's conclusory allegations were insufficient to controvert the Commissioner's evidence that the tax deficiency assessments were valid, and that notices of the assessments and demands for payment were timely sent to Keenan. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007) ("In opposing summary judgment, a nonmoving party must . . . designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.").

Keenan's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not review the Tax Court's imposition of a $ 15,000 penalty against Keenan pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6673(a)(1), because Keenan did not challenge the penalty on appeal. See DHL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm'r, 285 F.3d 1210, 1224 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that the Court ordinarily will not consider matters that are not raised in appellant's briefs).

The Commissioner's motion for sanctions is denied.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

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

/**/ The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[The Observer]

And this an excertped section of the Tax Court's comments on why they sanctioned Mr. Keenan:

ROBERT B. KEENAN,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

Release Date: DECEMBER 06, 2006


UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Filed December 6, 2006

Robert B. Keenan, pro se.

Linette B. Angelastro, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARVEL, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 121,/1/ and to impose a penalty under section 6673.

Background

This is an appeal from respondent's determination upholding the proposed use of a levy to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax liability for years 1988 and 1990 through 1994. Petitioner resided in Camarillo, California, when the petition in this case was filed.
.
.
.
In this case, the record clearly establishes that the only arguments made by petitioner during the administrative processing of this case were frivolous and/or groundless. Petitioner's conduct as summarized in this opinion demonstrates that the section 6330 proceeding was instituted primarily for delay and as a means to challenge the legitimacy of the Federal income tax system. His conduct merits a substantial penalty.

In setting the amount of the penalty, we consider petitioner's conduct in this case, his extended history of noncompliance with Federal tax law, his history of pursuing frivolous and groundless litigation in this Court, and the warnings he has received in previous administrative and judicial proceedings regarding the consequences of pursuing frivolous and groundless arguments. Petitioner repeatedly has failed to file Federal income tax returns. He participated in administrative proceedings before the Internal Revenue Service and filed several cases in this Court in which he challenged the legitimacy of the tax system and repeatedly questioned his obligation to file tax returns. See Keenan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-45; Keenan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-388. During the previous administrative and judicial proceedings and the section 6330 hearing in this case, petitioner was warned of the consequences that may attach to his conduct challenging the tax system. See, e.g., Keenan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-45. Despite the warnings, petitioner has continued to challenge the validity of the tax system and of the assessments at issue in this case. Consequently, we shall require petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) of $ 15,000.

Other arguments raised by petitioner have been considered and are rejected as meritless.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.

[.]

Pitiful.

He should've been hit with an additonal $25K.