The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-73367•United States v. 2020-07-16 | 18-73367 | WILLIAM YOUNG V. CIR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |
18-73367Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJul 16, 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM L. YOUNG,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-73367
Tax Ct. No. 3345-18
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted July 14, 2020
**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
William L. Young appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for
lack of jurisdiction his petition regarding his tax liabilities for the 2007 to 2012 tax
years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo.
Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-73367
basis supported by the record. We affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Young’s
petition because the petition was untimely. See Scar v. Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1363,
1366 (9th Cir. 1987) (Tax Court may exercise its jurisdiction only when the IRS
issues a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer files a timely petition for
redetermination); Wilson v. Comm’r, 564 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 1977) (90-day
period for petitioning the Tax Court commences on the date of mailing the notice
of deficiency).
Contrary to Young’s contention, the notices of deficiency were admissible
under the public records exception. See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138
(9th Cir. 1993) (discussing public records exception).
AFFIRMED.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.