John Hom v. Cir
This text of John Hom v. Cir (John Hom v. Cir) 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN C. HOM, No. 18-72939
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 9778-16L
v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
John C. Hom appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a
bench trial, sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s notice of federal
tax lien related to Hom’s tax liabilities for tax years 2005 through 2008. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
* 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). legal conclusions, Ann Jackson Family Found. v. Comm’r, 15 F.3d 917, 920 (9th
Cir. 1994), and for clear error its factual determinations, Boyd Gaming Corp. v.
Comm’r, 177 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly determined that the Commissioner did not err in
sustaining the federal tax lien because the record shows that the statutory
obligations were met by the settlement officer. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting
forth matters an appeals officer must consider in making a determination to sustain
a proposed levy action). Moreover, the Tax Court properly concluded that Hom
was not entitled to challenge his underlying tax liabilities during his collection due
process hearing because he was sent a statutory notice of deficiency and previously
litigated those liabilities in this court. See id. § 6330(c)(2)(B).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-72939
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Hom v. Cir, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-hom-v-cir-ca9-2019.