Frank W. Dollarhide; v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK W. DOLLARHIDE; et al.,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-71722
Tax Ct. Nos.21366-14
23113-12
23139-12
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Frank and Michelle Dollarhide appeal the Tax Court’s order granting the
Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) motion for entry of decision based upon the
parties’ Stipulation of Settled Issues. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
* 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
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
§ 7482(a)(1). We vacate the Tax Court’s judgment with respect to the Dollarhides’
2006 tax year and remand for further proceedings.
The Dollarhides argue that the Tax Court erred in granting the IRS’s motion
for entry of decision on the basis of the parties’ settlement because there was no
settlement agreement to enforce. We review the Tax Court’s enforcement of a
stipulation of settled issues for abuse of discretion. See Bail Bonds by Marvin
Nelson, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 820 F.2d 1543, 1547 (9th Cir. 1987).
The Stipulation of Settled Issues, on which the Tax Court’s order granting the
IRS’s motion for entry of decision is premised, says nothing about the key issue in
this case: whether the Dollarhides were barred by the statute of limitations set out
in 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2) from receiving a refund for tax year 2006. The
Dollarhides contested application of the statute of limitations bar in the Tax Court
and continue to do so on appeal.
The Commissioner now concedes that there was no conclusive settlement
agreement between the parties with respect to whether the Dollarhides were due a
refund for tax year 2006. Because there was no settlement agreement between the
parties with respect to this disputed issue, it was an abuse of discretion for the Tax
Court to grant the Commissioner’s motion and enter a judgment enforcing the
parties’ purported settlement of this issue. See Bail Bonds, 820 F.2d at 1547. We
thus vacate and remand on this ground and do not reach the Dollarhides’ remaining

-- 2 of 3 --

3
arguments on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --