EDWIN RITTER JONAS III, Esquire 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDWIN RITTER JONAS III, Esquire,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-72248
Tax Ct. No. 07-6384
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Ritter Jonas III appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order sustaining a
notice of federal income tax deficiency for tax years 2002 and 2003. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion.
River City Ranches #1 Ltd. v. Comm’r, 401 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2005)
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72248 2
(discovery); Liti v. Comm’r, 289 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (sanctions). We
affirm.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery from Jonas’s
ex-wife and her divorce attorney concerning the constructive trust, in light of the
orders from New Jersey courts denying Jonas access to constructive trust evidence.
See, e.g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) (explaining principles of
comity). Nor did the Tax Court abuse its discretion in declining to hold Jonas’s
ex-wife and her attorney in contempt, because they had adequate excuses for not
providing all of the documents requested in the trial subpoena. See Tax Ct.
R. 147(e) (“Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena
served upon any such person may be deemed a contempt of the Court.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Jonas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --