Lewis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-3828
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLEN LEWIS, No. 24-3828 Tax Ct. No. 22829-22L Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

Submitted November 12, 2025**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Glen Lewis appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment

sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s rejection of Lewis’s offer in

compromise and acceptance of an installment agreement in lieu of levying Lewis’s

assets. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo.

* 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). Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment);

Fargo v. Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th Cir. 2006) (review of the rejection of an

offer in compromise). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s claim

concerning the offer in compromise because Lewis failed to raise a genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether the Commissioner abused his discretion by rejecting

Lewis’s offer in compromise where he had income and assets to pay his assessed

tax liability or by addressing the issues raised by Lewis about the calculation of the

agreement. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2), (3) (setting forth what may be presented at

the hearing and the required bases for the determination); Fargo, 447 F.3d at 710

(finding no abuse of discretion in rejecting an offer in compromise where

taxpayers’ hardship claim was speculative and unsupported by the record).

We reject as unsupported by the record Lewis’s contentions that the

Commissioner incorrectly informed him of his appeal rights.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3828