Genevieve Marie Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1785
GENEVIEVE MARIE WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
(USTC-22570-09L)
Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Genevieve Marie Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Marion Elizabeth
Erickson, Joan Iris Oppenheimer, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Genevieve Marie Walker appeals from the tax court’s
order dismissing the petition filed in her name, which
challenged the Commissioner’s Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action issued to Walker. Observing that the petition
had not been signed by Walker, the tax court ordered that either
Walker affirm the petition or Michelle Jan Walker-Cook, the
individual who signed the petition on Walker’s behalf, submit a
motion to prosecute the petition as Walker’s “next friend.”
When, after repeated warnings, neither Walker nor Walker-Cook
complied with the tax court’s order, the court dismissed the
petition because it had not been filed by an authorized person.
Walker now requests that we overturn the tax court’s
decision. We decline to do so. Tax Court Rule 123(b) permits
the court to dismiss a case “[f]or failure of a petitioner
properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order
of the Court.” Id. “The Tax Court’s decision to dismiss a case
for lack of prosecution is not to be overturned, absent an abuse
of discretion.” Bauer v. Commissioner, 97 F.3d 45, 48 (4th Cir.
1996); see Daccarett-Ghia v. Commissioner, 70 F.3d 621, 625-26
(D.C. Cir. 1995) (standard of review). We discern no abuse of
the tax court’s discretion in dismissing the petition, and we
accordingly affirm. We deny each of Walker’s pending motions.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --