Case: 18-60136 Document: 00514566538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 18-60136 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar July 23, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

WAYNE D. RAMSAY, Petitioner−Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent−Appellee.

Appeal of a Decision of the United States Tax Court No. 15959-14

Before JONES, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Wayne Ramsay, pro se, appeals a decision of the United States Tax Court

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 18-60136 Document: 00514566538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2018

No. 18-60136 imposing a recalculated deficiency of $3,203, reduced from $4,243, for the 2011 taxable year. The issues addressed by the Tax Court were (1) whether Ram- say’s taxable income included imputed income of $891 from a former employ- er’s purchase of a life insurance policy and (2) whether the Tax Court had jur- isdiction to decide Ramsay’s liability for interest on the deficiency.

In a concise but comprehensive Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opin- ion, the Tax Court explained that “[b]oth issues . . . arise because petitioner changed his Federal income tax reporting positions after the IRS sent him the notice of deficiency.” The Tax Court observed that Ramsay’s reporting of the $891 “constituted an admission that must be overcome by cogent evidence” (citations omitted) and that Ramsay had not overcome the presumption. The Tax Court carefully explained the effect of that procedural posture on the treat- ment of any overpayment or deficiency. Finally, the Tax Court agreed with the Commissioner that “there is no applicable exception here to the general rule that the [Tax] Court lacks jurisdiction to determine interest in a deficiency case” (citation omitted).

We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the applicable law. The decision of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated in the Memorandum. Ramsay’s Motion for Protective Order, filed in this court on July 2, 2018, is DENIED.