John Hom v. Cir

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 28, 2019
Docket18-72939
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
John Hom v. Cir, (9th Cir. 2019).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Bluebook (online)
John Hom v. Cir, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-hom-v-cir-ca9-2019.