Amr M. Mohsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMR M. MOHSEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 21-71388
Tax Ct. No. 7821-19L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Amr M. Mohsen appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a
bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s (“IRS”)
determination concerning a collection action related to unpaid income tax liability
for tax year 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-71388
de novo the Tax Court’s interpretation of federal statutes and its determinations of
its own jurisdiction. Meruelo v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012), as
amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Nov. 14, 2012). We affirm.
Mohsen has waived any challenge to the Tax Court’s conclusion that it
lacked jurisdiction over his refund request for 2001 because he failed to raise this
issue in his opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d
925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we cannot manufacture arguments for
appellant and . . . will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in
appellant’s opening brief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Nevertheless, the Tax Court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to
adjudicate Mohsen’s disputed claim for a refund or credit for a remittance related
to tax year 2001 because there is no specific statutory grant conferring jurisdiction
to do so. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320 & 6330 (providing notice and hearing
requirements and setting forth procedures governing levies on property and
administrative reviews thereof); Est. of Branson v. Comm’r, 264 F.3d 904, 908 (9th
Cir. 2001) (explaining that “[t]he Tax Court’s jurisdiction is defined and limited by
Title 26 and it may not use general equitable powers to expand its jurisdictional
grant beyond this limited Congressional authorization”); cf. Brown v. Comm’r,
58 F.4th 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction
to refund Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act payments and citing with

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-71388
approval the Tax Court’s holding in Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1,
8 (2006), that “section 6330 does not expressly give [the Tax Court] jurisdiction to
determine an overpayment or to order a refund or credit of taxes paid”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --