Ernesto P. Patacsil; Marilyn E. Patacsil v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNESTO P. PATACSIL; MARILYN E.
PATACSIL,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-72785
Tax Ct. No. 28715-15
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto P. Patacsil and Marilyn E. Patacsil appeal from the Tax Court’s
order dismissing for failure to prosecute their petition challenging the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of tax deficiency for tax years
2010 through 2012. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We
* 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
JUN 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72785
review for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Noli v. Comm’r, 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Patacsils’
petition for failure to prosecute because the Patacsils failed to appear for trial or
provide any valid excuse for their absence. See id. (noting that “dismissal for
failure properly to prosecute will normally arise where a party fails to appear at
trial”); see also T.C. R. 123(a), (b) (Tax Court may dismiss a case and enter a
decision against a petitioner where the petitioner fails properly to prosecute or fails
to proceed as required by the Tax Court); T.C. R. 149(a) (Tax Court may dismiss a
case for failure properly to prosecute where the petitioner’s absence from trial is
unexcused); Larsen v. Comm’r, 765 F.2d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 1985) (Tax Court has
discretion to dismiss a petition for failure to comply with Tax Court Rules).
We reject as meritless the Patacsils’ contention that the Tax Court judge was
biased against them.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --