Dan Pickell 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).
EN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAN PICKELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-72818
Tax Ct. No. 14400-07
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from a decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Dan Pickell appeals pro se from the tax court’s order dismissing for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction his petition for relief from the Commissioner of Internal
FILED
JAN 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EN/Research 08-72818 2
Revenue’s attempts to collect his federal income tax liabilities for tax years 2000
through 2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de
novo. Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The tax court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Pickell
was never issued a “Notice of Determination” regarding the levies. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 6330(d). Contrary to Pickell’s arguments, the tax court properly determined that
the Commissioner sent a final notice of intent to levy to Pickell’s last known
address. See United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding
that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commissioner’s evidence of
compliance with official mail procedures is sufficient to establish that notices were
properly made).
Pickell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --