Earl Pluard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EARL PLUARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-70536
Tax Ct. No. 16201-07L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Earl Pluard appeals pro se from the tax court’s order dismissing his petition
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Abrams v. Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th
Cir. 1987) (per curiam). We affirm.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70536 2
The tax court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Pluard
was never issued a Notice of Deficiency or a Notice of Determination. See 26
U.S.C. §§ 6213(a), 6330(d); Abrams, 814 F.2d at 1357 (holding that a pre-filing
notification letter from the Internal Revenue Service was not a Notice of
Deficiency, and therefore, the tax court had no jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s
petition).
Pluard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --