Larson v. United States Ex Rel. Administrative Agencies of the Internal Revenue Service

Ninth Circuit

Larson v. United States Ex Rel. Administrative Agencies of the Internal Revenue Service

586 F. App'x 371

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 2014

Docket12-56694

StatusUnpublished

This text of 586 F. App'x 371 (Larson v. United States Ex Rel. Administrative Agencies of the Internal Revenue Service) 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

Larson v. United States Ex Rel. Administrative Agencies of the Internal Revenue Service, 586 F. App'x 371 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Duane W. and Pamela A. Larson appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action to recover tax refunds for tax years 1978-1980. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We re *372 view de novo a dismissal on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Larsons’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the Larsons litigated their tax liability for 1978-1980 in the Court of Federal Claims, which issued a final judgment on the merits in 2009. See Larson v. United States, 89 Fed.Cl. 363 (Fed.Cl.2009), aff'd, 376 Fed.Appx. 26 (Fed.Cir.2010); see also Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 598, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948) (“[I]f a claim of liability or non-liability relating to a particular tax year is litigated, a judgment on the merits is res judicata as to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim and the same tax year.”); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir.2003) (setting forth the three elements of res judicata).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because the Larsons failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

MEMORANDUM **

Duane W. and Pamela A. Larson appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action to recover tax refunds for tax years 1978-1980. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We re *372 view de novo a dismissal on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Larsons’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the Larsons litigated their tax liability for 1978-1980 in the Court of Federal Claims, which issued a final judgment on the merits in 2009. See Larson v. United States, 89 Fed.Cl. 363 (Fed.Cl.2009), aff'd, 376 Fed.Appx. 26 (Fed.Cir.2010); see also Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 598, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948) (“[I]f a claim of liability or non-liability relating to a particular tax year is litigated, a judgment on the merits is res judicata as to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim and the same tax year.”); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir.2003) (setting forth the three elements of res judicata).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because the Larsons failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Margaret Stewart Jamey L. Paulson William Keith Laura Spencer Lee Callison Stephanie Glowa Terri Gorecki Dan Berryman v. U.S. Bancorp

297 F.3d 953 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Larson v. United States

89 Fed. Cl. 363 (Federal Claims, 2009)

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

322 F.3d 1064 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 F. App'x 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larson-v-united-states-ex-rel-administrative-agencies-of-the-internal-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack