United States v. 2020-08-13 | 19-71546 | GARY LOHSE V. CIR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY R. LOHSE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-71546

Tax Ct. No. 11487-17

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Gary R. Lohse appeals pro se the Tax Court’s order dismissing for failure to
prosecute his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s
determination of a tax deficiency for the 2014 tax year. We have jurisdiction under
26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Noli v. Comm’r,

*
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 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71546
860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lohse’s action for
failure to prosecute because Lohse refused to stipulate to facts as required by Tax
Ct. R. 91(a)(1), failed to contest any specific adjustments in the Commissioner’s
notice of deficiency, and failed to submit any evidence of his income or deductions
for the 2014 tax year. See Tax Ct. R. 123 (authorizing the Tax Court to dismiss a
case “[f]or failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these
Rules or any order of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems
sufficient”); Larsen v. Comm’r, 765 F.2d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming the
Tax Court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute where the taxpayer refused to
stipulate as required by Rule 91).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lohse’s contention that the Tax
Court lacked jurisdiction.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lohse’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.