PRA Argument Goes Down In The 10th

[The Observer]

RICHARD JOHN SPONSEL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

Release Date: JANUARY 14, 2009


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

(Tax Ct. No. 27944-07)
(United States Tax Court)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT/*/

Before MURPHY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Richard John Sponsel appeals an order of the Tax Court dismissing his petition for redetermination of an income tax deficiency and additions to the tax for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Our jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)(1), and we affirm.

The Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency to Mr. Sponsel for tax year 2004. The deficiency and additional taxes totaled $ 3427. In his amended petition for redetermination and in his responses to the Commissioner's motion to dismiss, Mr. Sponsel argued that (1) the IRS had failed to cite authority for the filing of a Form 1040 Substitute For Return; (2) the notice of determination was in error because "[t]he existence of a lawful deficiency must be predicated on signed income tax returns -- that do not exist;" R. doc. 8 at 1; (3) the IRS had failed to cite any law requiring him, as an American citizen, to file an income tax return; and (4) he could not be made to file a Form 1040 that has no valid OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. sections 3501-3521. The Tax Court concluded that Mr. Sponsel's petition failed to raise a justiciable issue and granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss.

We review de novo the Tax Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Fox v. Comm'r, 969 F.2d 951, 952 (10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we apply the same standard as a district court would in the first instance. Id. (citing 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)). Because Mr. Sponsel proceeds pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Wheeler v. Comm'r, 528 F.3d 773, 781 (10th Cir. 2008).

Mr. Sponsel's arguments are all frivolous tax-protester arguments. Mr. Sponsel does not deny that he failed to file a tax return for the 2004 tax year, and it is unclear whether the Commissioner prepared a Substitute For Return. If he did, his authority derived from 26 U.S.C. section 6020(b)(1); even if a substitute return was not prepared, the Commissioner was still within his authority to issue a notice of deficiency. See Smalldridge v. Comm'r, 804 F.2d 125, 127 n.2 (10th Cir. 1986); 26 U.S.C. section 6201.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to levy an income tax. Charczuk v. Comm'r, 771 F.2d 471, 473 (10th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) ("For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens. . . ."). Statutory authority is found at 26 U.S.C. section 1 and throughout Title 26 of the United States Code. Wheeler, 528 F.3d at 777. Notice of the taxpayer's duty to file a return and pay tax is found in 26 U.S.C. section 6012. Mr. Sponsel's argument based on the Paperwork Reduction Act is foreclosed by our recent opinion in Wheeler, 528 F.3d at 780-81.

The judgment of the United States Tax Court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTE

/*/ After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

[SteveSy]

Charczuk v. Comm'r, 771 F.2d 471, 473 (10th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) ("For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens. . . .").

Really....Guess we have two Supreme Court's or someone's living in an alternate reality.

While courts may have offered differing views of the income tax over time, the United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the federal income tax for 80 years. Since 1916, the Court has construed the tax as an indirect tax authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment.

- United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153 (4th Cir. 05/22/1996)

Yes, these guys are so consistent on how the tax is constitutional. They can't even agree on what the Supreme Court has said. You would think they would have all agreed on how the tax is constitutional after this long considering they make a point to say its so well established that it is constitutional. They just quite haven't figured out how yet....they're still working on that part...lol. We should all absolutely place our trust in their ability to correctly interpret the constitution that protects us from an over zealous government.

[Famspear]

I think we've already been through this.

About a million times.

Reading comprehension is important, Steve.

[Paul]

Good ole stevesy just can't understand that, because of the 16th amendment (the ONLY provision in the law that he refuses to read literally), it no longer matters if the income tax is direct or indirect, which means the courts will never resolve the issue.