STEVEN STANWYCK V. CIR, No. 12-73136 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 04 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN JAY STANWYCK, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 12-73136 Tax Ct. No. 533-07 v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted July 26, 2016 ** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Steven Jay Stanwyck, a former attorney, appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order denying innocent spouse relief, and sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection action for the years 1991, 1997, and 1998. We dismiss the appeal as moot. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Because the Internal Revenue Service has written off the unpaid balances of Stanwyck’s 1991, 1997, and 1998 tax liabilities, and has released the related federal tax lien, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See DiGiorgio v. Lee (In re Di Giorgio), 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To qualify for adjudication in federal court, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Greene-Thapedi v. Comm’r, 126 T.C. 1, 8 (2006) (“Inasmuch as the proposed levy is moot, petitioner has no independent basis to challenge the existence or amount of her underlying tax liability in this proceeding.”). We take judicial notice of the documents attached to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, filed on March 18, 2014. Stanwyck’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on November 20, 2013, is denied as moot. DISMISSED. 2 12-73136

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.