
    Nathaniel Caleb AVERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-72506.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
    Ste. E, c/o Peter Gibbons, Carson City, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Robert R. Di Trolio, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Acting Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, Regina S. Moriarty, Esq., Eileen J. O’Connor, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The tax court properly upheld the tax determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Nathaniel Caleb Avery (“Avery”) received unreported income, and Avery failed to submit any evidence showing “that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.1999).

The tax court also properly upheld the late-filing addition to tax because Avery did not file a tax return for 2002 or provide any evidence suggesting reasonable cause for his failure to do so. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).

The tax court acted within its discretion when imposed a $5,000 penalty, after finding that Avery had instituted the proceedings primarily for delay and had advanced frivolous arguments. See 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a) (providing for sanctions up to $25,000 where “proceedings ... have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay” or where “the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless”); Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).

Avery’s contention that the tax court judge was biased is not supported by the record. See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.1993) (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias).

Avery’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     