In a unusally terse opinion, which I interpret to mean that the courts do not want to spend any more time on TP nonsense than they have to, the 4th Circuit tosses out another frivolous appeal:
THOMAS WANE MARETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Release Date: OCTOBER 02, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1463
Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Court No. 06-4048)
Submitted: September 29, 2009
Decided: October 2, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Wane Marett, Appellant Pro Se. John DiCicco, Richard
Farber, Andrew Weiner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Clarissa C. Potter,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Wane Marett appeals from the tax court's orders imposing sanctions, upholding the Commissioner's proposed collection activities with respect to his tax liability for the 2000 tax year, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. See Marett v. Comm'r, IRS, Tax Ct. No. 06-4048 (U.S.T.C. Jan 22, 2009; entered Feb. 25 & filed Feb. 26, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
It turns out that the original tax court case involved our good friend, Dr. Clarkson. Some key moments from that case:
Upon remand, the case was assigned to Appeals Settlement Officer Pat McCall (Settlement Officer McCall), an impartial officer with no previous involvement with the unpaid taxes. On September 6, 2006, Settlement Officer McCall held a face-to-face hearing with petitioner. Petitioner appeared for the conference with Robert Clarkson (Mr. Clarkson), his alleged "representative", and three other individuals (two alleged expert witnesses who were "to testify and prove [petitioner's] case" and an "assistant"). Mr. Clarkson insisted that all four individuals be allowed in the hearing with petitioner but was repeatedly advised that petitioner could bring only two individuals into the conference. Ultimately, petitioner selected Mr. Clarkson and a second unnamed individual who operated a tape recorder to accompany petitioner into the hearing room.
/5/ Mr. Clarkson was also advised on several occasions that he was not permitted to represent petitioner, but he continued to speak, offering only frivolous taxpayer arguments. We note that Settlement Officer McCall did not abuse her discretion in refusing to allow Mr. Clarkson to represent petitioner, as Mr. Clarkson offered no proof that he was an attorney in good standing, a certified public accountant, or an enrolled agent in good standing. See Young v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2003-6 (third party was not entitled to represent taxpayer in a sec. 6330 hearing because of noncompliance with Circular No. 230).
Mr. Clarkson was removed from the courtroom during the Mar. 17, 2008, trial session of the Court in Columbia, South Carolina, pursuant to an order of the Court.
