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)
15-70139•Robert M. Herrera v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
15-70139Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 21, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT M. HERRERA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-70139
Tax Ct. No. 15895-14L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Robert M. Herrera appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for
lack of jurisdiction his action related to his 2008 tax liability. We have jurisdiction
under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo, Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d
966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006), and 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 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 15-70139
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Herrera’s
petition because Herrera did not file it within 90 days of a notice of deficiency or
30 days of a notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a) (establishing a 90-
day requirement for appealing a notice of deficiency); 6320(c) & 6330(d)(1)
(establishing a 30-day requirement for appealing a notice of determination
concerning notices of lien or notices of intent to levy); Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968
(the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is defined by
Title 26 of the United States Code).
We do not consider Herrera’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal
in this case, that the Internal Revenue Service sent his mail to an incorrect address.
See Kochansky v. Comm’r, 92 F.3d 957, 959 (9th Cir. 1996).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Herrera’s contentions regarding the Tax
Court decisions in Nos. 15717-10, 26902-10, and 29326-11 because Herrera did
not file a notice of appeal from those decisions. See Fed. R. App. P. 13(a)(1);
26 U.S.C. § 7483 (“Review of a decision of the Tax Court shall be obtained by
filing a notice of appeal[.]”).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.