David K. Winterroth v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID K. WINTERROTH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-72377
Tax Ct. No. 4804-09L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
David K. Winterroth appeals pro se from the tax court’s summary judgment
in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) in
Winterroth’s action challenging a federal tax lien to collect penalties assessed
FILED
JUL 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72377 2
against him for filing a frivolous federal income tax return. We have jurisdiction
under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s grant of summary
judgment. Miller v. Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that, in light of Winterroth’s 2006 return
reporting zero income, zero tax due, and requesting a refund for the amount
withheld by his employer despite having earned wages, the penalty issued against
Winterroth was appropriate. See 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) (civil penalty of $5,000 for
filing a frivolous tax return); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.
1985) (per curiam) (a form 1040 filed to obtain a tax refund is a tax return).
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the record
supports the Commissioner’s determination that the collection of the penalty
should proceed, and Winterroth failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact.
See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (memorandum).
Winterroth’s contention that he was denied due process due to bias by both
the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court is not supported by the record.
Winterroth’s remaining contentions, including that he is not subject to the
income tax laws, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --