D. POTTER V. CIR, No. 14-70789 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 1 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT D. SIDNEY POTTER, No. Petitioner - Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-70789 Tax Ct. No. 3735-13 MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. D. Sidney Potter appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion to enter judgment reflecting that Potter has no deficiencies in income tax nor overpayments due for tax years 2007 through 2009. 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). determination that it lacked jurisdiction. I & O Pub. Co. v. Comm’r, 131 F.3d 1314, 1315 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm. The Tax Court properly held that it was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the amount of Potter’s claimed net operating losses that could only affect Potter’s tax liability in tax years not before the Tax Court. See 26 U.S.C. § 6214(b); Handeland v. Comm’r, 519 F.2d 327, 329-30 (9th Cir. 1975) (in the absence of issues concerning recurring liability, only relief Tax Court can provide is finding of no deficiency). Because the Tax Court awarded Potter all the relief he could seek from that court, Potter has impermissibly appealed a judgment favorable to himself, and we accordingly do not reach the merits of his arguments. See Clapp v. Comm’r, 875 F.2d 1396, 1398 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a party may not appeal a favorable judgment of the Tax Court). AFFIRMED. 2 14-70789

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.