Edmund V. Manzano v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDMUND V. MANZANO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-73384
Tax Ct. No. 17650-19
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Edmund V. Manzano appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision
dismissing his petition for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 26
U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Hongsermeier v. Comm’r, 621 F.3d
890, 899 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
* 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
NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-73384
The Tax Court properly dismissed Manzano’s petition for failure to state a
claim because Manzano did not set forth a clear and concise argument of error, or
any facts demonstrating error, in the Commissioner’s determination of his tax
liability for the 2017 tax year. See Tax Ct. R. 34(b)(4) (explaining that a petition
must contain “[c]lear and concise assignments of each and every error. . .
committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency. . . [and]. . .
[a]ny issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be
conceded”); Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming
dismissal where a petitioner failed to present “any justiciable error in his petition
for redetermination”).
Manzano’s motion to vacate the judgment (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --