
    Donald MACPHERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, and Estate of Judith A. May, Deceased; et al., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Donald MacPherson, Petitioner-Appellant, and Leonard L. Best and Evelyn R. Best, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-71795, No. 16-72599
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted November 14, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed November 16, 2017
    Donald MacPherson, Attorney, The MacPherson Group, Phoenix, AZ, William A. Cohan, Attorney, William A. Cohan PC, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Donald MacPherson, Attorney, The MacPherson Group, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners
    Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, Bruce R. Ellisen, Randolph Lyons Hutter, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney Geri-.eral, Sherra Wong, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Circuit Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and SAVAGE, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Timothy J. Savage, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Attorney Donald W. MacPherson appeals the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions in two cases in which he counseled his taxpayer clients to maintain frivolous positions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering MacPherson to pay excess costs pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(2). See Grimes v. CIR, 806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard of review). Mac-Pherson “multiplied the proceedings in [both cases] unreasonably and vexatiously.” 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(2). He “knowingly or recklessly raise[d] a frivolous argument.” Moore v. Keegan Mgmt. Co. (In re Keegan Mgmt. Co. Sec. Litig.), 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1996). On behalf of his clients, he advanced a position contrary to established law and unsupported by fact. In a signed declaration, he represented that he knew his position would be unsuccessful. The Tax Court appropriately ordered MacPherson to pay only those costs incurred in responding to MacPherson’s frivolous arguments. See Moore, 78 F.3d at 435.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     