Jay v. Commissioner
This text of 168 F. App'x 780 (Jay v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Russell C. Jay appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision dismissing for failure to state a claim his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s (“Commissioner”) notice of deficiency for tax year 2002. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo a Tax Court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly dismissed Jay’s petition for failure to state a claim because he did not set forth a clear and concise assignment of error or any facts demonstrating error in the Commissioner’s determinations. See Tax Ct. R. 34(b)(4); Grimes, 806 F.2d at 1453-54. Moreover, the Tax Court ordered Jay to file an amended petition clearly setting forth the errors alleged, and he failed to do so, and also failed to appear at the hearing on the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss.
Jay’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny the Commissioner’s December 6, 2005, motion requesting sanctions in the amount of $6,000 because the arguments raised in Jay’s appeal, though unavailing, are not frivolous. See Grimes, 806 F.2d at 1454.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
168 F. App'x 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jay-v-commissioner-ca9-2006.