Harold P. Kupersmit v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1350
__________
HAROLD P. KUPERSMIT,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States Tax Court
(T.C. No. 6691-23L)
Tax Court Judge: Honorable Courtney D. Jones
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 7, 2025
Before: HARDIMAN, FREEMAN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 20, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
In March 2023, the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (“Appeals Office”)
sustained collection actions against Harold Kupersmit under the Internal Revenue Code
(“IRC”). The actions, a levy and a federal tax lien, had been proposed to collect
Kupersmit’s unpaid income tax and penalties for tax years 2009 and 2012 plus a civil
penalty (imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a)) for a frivolous return he had filed for tax
year 2017.1 Kupersmit challenged the Notice of Determination in the United States Tax
Court.2 After somewhat protracted proceedings, with which the parties are familiar, the
Tax Court upheld the Appeals Office’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of
the Commissioner regarding the collection actions. The Tax Court dismissed
Kupersmit’s petition for lack of jurisdiction as to his remaining claims. Kupersmit filed a
timely notice of appeal.
The Tax Court had jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1). We have
jurisdiction to review Tax Court orders under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). Ordinarily, we
1 Kupersmit did not file an income return for tax years 2009 and 2012, so the
Commissioner prepared substitute returns for him and issued a notice of deficiency,
assessing tax and penalties, including for money won through gambling. See 26 U.S.C.
§§ 6020(b), 6651(a)(1) & (2), & 6654(a). Kupersmit disputed the deficiencies in Tax
Court without success. For the ruling relating to the 2009 tax year, he took an appeal to
this Court that was dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Kupersmit v. Comm’r, C.A.
No. 17-1486, 2017 WL 3973933 (3d Cir. May 24, 2017) (order). The IRS has assessed
the deficiencies and penalties.
2 He also sought review of what he described as “various” other notices. 3d Cir. Doc.
No. 17 at 11.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
exercise plenary review over the Tax Court’s legal determinations and its grant of
summary judgment. See Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r, 861
F.3d 396, 403 (3d Cir. 2017); see also PNC Bancorp, Inc. v. Comm’r, 212 F.3d 822, 827
(3d Cir. 2000). Where the underlying tax liability is not at issue, we, like the Tax Court,
review the decision of the Appeals Office for abuse of discretion. See Kindred v.
Comm’r, 454 F.3d 688, 694 (7th Cir. 2006), as amended (Aug. 15, 2006).
However, as the Commissioner argues, Kupersmit does not challenge the bases on
which the Tax Court upheld the Notice of Determination or explain how the Appeals
Office abused its discretion in reaching the underlying decision to sustain the collection
actions. Instead, in his brief, he discusses different aspects of his interactions with the
IRS over the last several decades.
More specifically, Kupersmit highlights his problem filing a tax return for tax year
2007; an issue with inaccurate 1099 forms for income from a brokerage account in 2007
and 2008; and a problem reporting gambling income. Regarding his gambling income,
he contends that the Commissioner filed a substitute return for him for tax year 2008 and
taxed him for horse-race winnings without subtracting his gambling losses.
Although Kupersmit also asserts that the IRS’s lien is illegal, he does not explain
how it is so. And, to the extent that he claims an abuse of discretion, he only generally
objects to the “Commi[ssion] of heinous acts” and “Fraud on the Court” and questions
the “Genuineness of the administrative record.” 3d Cir. Doc. No. 11 at 5.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In short, Kupersmit fails to present relevant arguments for our consideration.
Accordingly, he has forfeited review of the Tax Court’s decision. See M.S. ex rel. Hall v.
Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist., 969 F.3d 120, 124 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that the
appellant forfeited claims by failing to raise them in the opening brief). We will affirm
the Tax Court’s judgment.
In addition to discussing arguments unrelated to the proceedings in the Tax Court,
Kupersmit presents several claims in his brief for our consideration and requests $900
million in damages. However, we are “a court of review, not of first view,” so we will
not rule on these claims. See O’Hanlon v. Uber Techs., Inc., 990 F.3d 757, 762 n.3 (3d
Cir. 2021) (reaffirming the established principle) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
To the extent that Kupersmit asks us to exercise our mandamus authority to provide him
damages or other relief, his request is denied. Kupersmit’s “motion to strike improper
content” also is denied.3
3 In that filing, he contends that the Commissioner has claimed without support that there
was no abuse of discretion and that he “was ‘frivolous.’” 3d Cir. Doc. No. 23 at 3. He
argues that his motion should be granted because of grave problems he perceives in, inter
alia, the three branches of the federal government, the Pennsylvania court system, and the
IRC. Id. at 1-2. In addition to asking us to strike what he describes as “improper
content” in the Commissioner’s brief, he requests $900 million dollars in damages and a
release of all liens against him and his wife.

-- 4 of 4 --