William F. Horne v. Internal Revenue Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM F. HORNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-17183
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00214-MMD-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
William F. Horne appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) arising from the
assessment of penalties and a tax lien. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
* 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 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-17183
State of Neb. ex rel. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678-79 (9th Cir.
1998). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Horne’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Horne failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he
complied with the prerequisites to challenging a penalty assessed under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6700. See 26 U.S.C. § 6703(c)(1), (2) (prerequisites to challenging a § 6700
penalty); Korobkin v. United States, 988 F.2d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 1993) (method by
which a taxpayer may challenge a §6700 penalty); Thomas v. United States, 755
F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 1985) (with one exception, the district court has no
jurisdiction over suits for a refund of penalty amounts paid until the taxpayer has
paid the full amount of the contested penalty assessment).
The district court properly denied as moot Horne’s motion to remand. See
Bentson, 146 F.3d at 678-79 (a district court’s decision to remand a removed case
is reviewed de novo and once a case is properly removed, a district court has the
authority to decide whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --