Sarkissian v. Commissioner

Ninth Circuit

Sarkissian v. Commissioner

604 F. App'x 616

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 2015

Docket13-70121

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 604 F. App'x 616 (Sarkissian 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.

Bluebook

Sarkissian v. Commissioner, 604 F. App'x 616 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arthur Sarkissian appeals from the Tax Court’s order dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax Court’s factual findings, Williams v. Comm’r, 935 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Sarkissian actually received the notice of deficiency. See Erhard v. Comm’r, 87 F.3d 273, 274 (9th Cir.1996) (notice of deficiency is valid if “the taxpayer actually receives the notice, regardless of where the IRS mails the notice”); see also Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2007) (“[T]he Tax Court ... may disregard uncontradicted testimony by a taxpayer where it finds that testimony lacking in credibility.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject Sarkissian’s arguments concerning due process and the IRS’s alleged intentional failure to send notices to Sark-issian’s tax preparer and attorney.

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 **

Arthur Sarkissian appeals from the Tax Court’s order dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax Court’s factual findings, Williams v. Comm’r, 935 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Sarkissian actually received the notice of deficiency. See Erhard v. Comm’r, 87 F.3d 273, 274 (9th Cir.1996) (notice of deficiency is valid if “the taxpayer actually receives the notice, regardless of where the IRS mails the notice”); see also Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2007) (“[T]he Tax Court ... may disregard uncontradicted testimony by a taxpayer where it finds that testimony lacking in credibility.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject Sarkissian’s arguments concerning due process and the IRS’s alleged intentional failure to send notices to Sark-issian’s tax preparer and attorney.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 F. App'x 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarkissian-v-commissioner-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack