William Thompson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM THOMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-73535
Tax Ct. No. 11905-11L
ORDER
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s motion to amend the opinion is
granted. The memorandum disposition filed on July 5, 2012, is withdrawn. A new
memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.
Having not raised an issue of fact or law that would warrant relief,
Thompson’s petition for panel rehearing is denied.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed appeal.
FILED
OCT 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

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 and, therefore, denies Thompson’s request. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-73535
Tax Ct. No. 11905-11L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
William C. Thompson appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision
dismissing his appeal concerning tax years 1993-2004 and 2006 for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review
FILED
OCT 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 2 of 4 --

11-73535 2
de novo. Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
We previously issued a memorandum disposition affirming the Tax Court’s
decision dismissing Thompson’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because no notice of determination had been issued for the tax years in question.
Subsequently, Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) filed a motion stating
that, despite its previous representations, a notice of determination had been issued
on August 11, 2009. CIR argued that the Tax Court still lacked jurisdiction
because Thompson did not file a petition with the Tax Court within 30 days of
the notice of determination. Thompson was directed to brief whether, in light of
CIR’s new evidence, the Tax Court had jurisdiction over his action. Thompson did
not respond.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Tax Court properly determined that it
lacked jurisdiction because Thompson did not file a petition within 30 days of a
notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1) (conferring
jurisdiction to the Tax Court for review of a levy or lien notice only after taxpayer
files a petition for review within 30 days of receiving a determination based upon a
collection due process hearing concerning the taxable period to which the unpaid
tax relates); Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 (Tax Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is
statutorily limited by Title 26 of the United States Code).

-- 3 of 4 --

11-73535 3
Thompson’s contentions concerning 26 U.S.C. § 7122 are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --