RICHARD CANATELLA V. CIR, No. 14-73457 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD A. CANATELLA, Petitioner-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-73457 Tax Ct. No. 13787-12 v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Richard A. Canatella, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, after a bench trial, upholding the determination of income tax deficiencies and penalties. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a recusal motion. Glick v. * 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). Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Canatella’s motion for recusal because Canatella failed to establish any ground for recusal. See Nobles v. Comm’r, 105 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the “mandatory recusal provisions in section 455 do not apply to tax court judges,” and noting the absence of a basis in statute or court rule for requiring tax court judges’ recusal); see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth grounds for recusal including “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as unsupported by the record Canatella’s contention that the Tax Court demonstrated bias, partiality, or otherwise violated Canatella’s due process rights. We do not consider arguments, allegations, or evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988). The Commissioner’s motion to strike extra-record material and arguments (Docket Entry No. 26) is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 14-73457

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.