
    Edward ARMBRUSTER, Petitioner-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-61006
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 1, 2009.
    
      Edward Armbruster, pro se.
    Robert R. Di Trolio, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, Nathan J. Hochman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Edward Armbruster failed to file his 2005 tax return. He appeals pro se the decision of the United States Tax Court granting the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and assessing his tax deficiency at $21,322 with additional penalties totaling $7,465. Even though we construe Armbruster’s pleadings and arguments liberally, Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898, 901 (5th Cir.2007), he failed to argue below any of the issues he raises on appeal.

Armbruster’s appeal presents three arguments, none of which were presented to the Tax Court, where he also proceeded pro se. Armbruster’s response to the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings did not contain any argument why the Government’s calculation of a deficiency was incorrect factually or as a matter of law. Instead, he accused the Government’s attorneys of violating ethical rales and asserted merely that he had “assigned error” to the Government’s assessment of a deficiency. Such a general assertion, devoid of any factual or legal argument, even from a pro se party, will not preserve an argument on appeal. See Stearman v. Comm’r, 436 F.3d 533, 537 (5th Cir.2006) (affirming a dismissal of a pro se tax complaint for failure to raise arguments below in response to the government’s motion to dismiss). The only other pleading in the record, Armbruster’s petition for determination of a deficiency, asserts two frivolous arguments that he has abandoned on appeal. Arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225, 227 (5th Cir.1993) (declining to consider issue raised for the first time on appeal by a pro se appellant). Accordingly, the judgment of the tax court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court, has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     